V                              PRINCETON,  N.  J.                              <ijr 

BR    332    '.T5    S64    1907 

Smith,    Preserved,    1880-1941 

Luther's   table   talk 

•• 


2 
LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK 


2£&^if«i  %v 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 


EDITED  BY  TH,^  FACULTY  OF   POLITICAL   SCIENCE  OF 
IMBIA   UNIVERSITY 


■hTT  FACUI 

MIOLUM 

Volume  XXVI]  [Number  2 


LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK 


A  CRITICAL  STUDY 


BY 

PRESERVED   SMITH,  Ph.D. 

Sometime  Schiff  Fellow 


THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY,  AGENTS 

London  :  P.  S.  King  &  Son 

1907 


Copyright,  1907 

BY 

PRESERVED  SMITH 


PREFACE 

The  following  study  aims  to  give  a  picture  of  the  environ- 
ment in  which  Luther  and  his  guests  conversed  and  of  the 
men  who  noted  down  the  sayings  of  the  master.  Each  of 
these  reporters  was  a  source  from  whom  others  copied  until 
practically  all  the  sayings  were  united,  after  several  stages 
of  transcription,  into  great  collections  by  various  editors. 
We  might  compare  the  process  of  accumulation  to  that  by 
which  many  springs  pour  their  waters  into  the  same  great 
river,  the  original  notebooks  corresponding  to  the  springs, 
the  first  copies  to  tributary  streams,  and  the  final  editions  to 
large  rivers.  From  an  account  of  this  process,  as  little  tech- 
nical as  possible,  we  naturally  come  to  an  appreciation  of  the 
literary  and  historical  value  of  the  Table  Talk,  treating  it 
in  a  manner  which  is  illustrative  as  well  as  critical. 

Among  many  friends  and  scholars  who  have  helped  me 
with  criticism  and  suggestion,  I  must  thank  especially  those 
to  whose  constant  interest  I  owe  the  most — Professor  J.  H. 
Robinson,  Professor  J.  T.  Shotwell,  both  of  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, and  my  father,  the  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.  D. 
131]  5 


TABLE  OF  CONTEtNTS 


PAGE 

Preface         5 

I.  Luther  and  His  Guests 9 

II.  The  Earlier  Reporters  of  the  Table  Talk      .  15 

III.  The  Younger  Group 29 

IV.  The  Sources 38 

V.  The  Collections 51 

VI.  The  Printed  Editions  of  the  Table  Talk        .     63 

VII.  The  Translations 76 

VIII.  The  Table  Talk  in  Literature  .         .         .85 

IX.  The  Table  Talk  in  History.  ...         99 

Appendix.     The  Literature        .         .         .         .111 
133]  7 


CHAPTER  I 
Luther  and  His  Guests 

In  the  old  town  of  Wittenberg  the  traveler  may  still  see 
Luther's  house  looking  much  as  it  did  three  hundred  and 
eighty  years  ago  when  he  moved  into  it  after  his  marriage. 
The  veneration  of  posterity  has  restored  it  to  the  style  of 
Luther's  time  and  filled  it  with  memorials  of  its  famous 
occupant;  pictures  of  Martin  and  Kathe  on  the  walls;  the 
old  cathedra  in  the  aula  or  lecture  room;  the  bench  on 
which  Luther  often  used  to  sit  with  his  wife,  looking  out  on 
the  neat  garden  in  front. 

The  house  had  once  been  the  Augustinian  Monastery, 
and  as  such  Luther's  home  for  several  years  while  he  was  a 
member  of  the  order;  but  the  progress  of  the  reformed 
teaching  had  left  it  without  occupants  for  some  time  before 
it  became  the  dwelling  of  the  ex-monk  and  his  wife  with 
their  numerous  dependents  and  guests.  Here  the  reformer 
spent  the  happiest  and  most  peaceful  part  of  his  career.  The 
storm  and  stress  of  the  previous  years  had  given  place  to 
a  period  of  comparative  calm  which  was  to  last  the  rest 
of  his  life.  The  awful  struggle  in  his  own  soul,  the 
fierce  revolt  against  the  abuse  of  indulgences,  the  brave 
stand  at  Augsburg,  the  heroism  of  Worms,  the  imprison- 
ment in  the  Wartburg  and  the  perturbations  of  the  Peas- 
ants' Revolt,  all  had  passed.  When  Luther  and  his  bride 
took  possession  of  their  home  in  June,  1525,  they  had  be- 
fore them  twenty  busy,  useful  years,  years  of  comparative 
quiet  and  domestic  happiness. 

135]  9 


IO  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I36 

One  cannot  say  years  of  domestic  privacy.  The  Luthers 
kept  open  house  and  entertained  not  only  their  poor  rela- 
tives such  as  old  "  Muhme  Lehne  "  and  their  nieces,  but 
many  students  as  well,  to  say  nothing  of  the  distinguished 
strangers  who  visited  Wittenberg.  The  table  was  always 
full.  At  the  head  the  large  form  and  strong  face  of  the 
master  would  be  conspicuous.  He  was  a  man  of  many 
moods,  and  his  strong  personality  forced  them  on  his 
guests,  who  took  their  cue  from  him,  maintaining  silence 
or  talking  seriously  or  jocosely  as  he  set  the  example.  At 
times  he  was  lost  in  thought  over  some  weighty  problem 
of  theology,  or  the  vexatious  attacks  of  the  "  Papists  "  or 
"  Ranters,"  and  again  he  was  "  happy  in  mind,  joking  with 
his  friends."  Near  him  we  see  the  staid  and  dignified 
Schiefer,  or  the  mournful  Schlaginhaufen,  intent  upon  his 
sins,  or  the  irascible  countenance  of  Cordatus.  A  strongly 
built  woman,  comely  1  in  spite  of  her  snub  nose,  serves  the 
meal  with  the  assistance  of  her  female  relatives,  frequently 
participating  in  the  conversation,  occasionally  the  butt  of 
an  innocent  joke  from  her  husband,  and  sometimes  quarrel- 
ing with  the  students  who  kept  Luther  from  his  dinner 
with  their  interminable  questions.  Let  us  hear  from  one 
of  those  present  what  a  meal  was  like  at  Luther's  table :  2 

As  our  Doctor  often  took  weighty  and  deep  thoughts  with 
him  to  table,  sometimes  during  the  whole  meal  he  would 
maintain  the  silence  of  the  cloister,  so  that  no  word  was 
spoken ;  nevertheless  at  suitable  times  he  let  himself  be  very 
merry,  so  that  we  were  accustomed  to  call  his  sayings  the  con- 

1  Luther  once  thought  her  "  wunderhubsch."  Kostlin,  Martin  Lather, 
i,  764. 

2  Mathesius,  Luther  Histories,  xii,  133a,  quoted  by  Kroker,  Luthers 
Tischredcn  in  dcr  Mathcsischcn  Sammlung,  Einleitung,  p.  11.  Cf.  Kost- 
lin, ii,  488,  Anm.  1. 


137]  LUTHER  AND  HIS  GUESTS  ri 

diments  of  the  meal,  which  were  pleasanter  to  us  than  all 
spices  and  delicate  food. 

If  he  wished  to  get  us  to  speak  he  would  make  a  beginning: 
What's  the  news?  The  first  time  we  let  the  remark  pass,  but 
if  he  said  again:  Ye  Prelates,  what's  the  news  in  the  land? 
then  the  old  men  would  begin  to  talk.  Doctor  Wolf  Severus 
[Schiefer]  a  travelled  man  of  the  world  who  had  been  the  pre- 
ceptor of  his  Roman  Majesty's  children,  often  was  the  first 
to  introduce  a  subject,  unless  there  was  a  stranger  present. 

If  the  conversation  was  animated,  it  was  nevertheless  con- 
ducted with  decent  propriety  and  courtesy,  and  the  others 
would  not  take  their  turn  at  it  until  the  Doctor  spoke.  Often 
good  questions  on  the  Bible  would  be  propounded,  which  he 
solved  finely,  satisfactorily  and  concisely,  and  if  any  one  took 
exception  to  any  part,  he  would  even  suffer  that  and  refute 
him  with  a  proper  answer.  Often  honorable  people  from  the 
University  were  present,  and  then  fine  things  were  said  and 
stories  told. 

Occasionally  Luther  would  dictate  something  to  one  of 
the  disciples.  This  was  usually  "  some  precious  material 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  "  such  as  the  exegesis  of 
the  twenty-third  Psalm  which  Rorer  recorded  one  even- 
ing and  had  printed.1 

Cordatus  claims  the  honor  of  being  the  first  to  conceive 

1  Seckendorf,  Comment.  Hist,  de  Lutherismo,  iii,  134.  Seidemann, 
Lauterbachs  Tagebuch  von  1538,  p.  xiii.  That  this  practice  was  com- 
mon among  the  other  disciples  may  be  seen  from  Aurifaber's  Introduc- 
tion to  his  edition  of  the  sermons :  "  These  sermons  have  never  been 
printed  but  by  me,  John  Aurifaber.  from  the  written  books  of  honor- 
able and  blessed  persons,  such  as  M.  Vitus  Dietrich  of  Niirnberg,  Item 
M.  Georgius  Rorarius,  M.  Antonius  Lauterbach,  and  Herr  Philip 
Fabricius  (who  took  them  from  the  holy  mouth  of  Luther  as  he 
preached)."  Quoted  by  Seidemann  from  the  Eisleben  edition  of  the 
Samtntliche  Werke,  ii,  145b.  These  sermons  were  largely  expositions 
of  Scripture.  Cf.  also  Seidemann,  ibid.,  p.  165;  Bindseil's  Colloquia.  iii, 
158. 


12  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [jgg 

the  brilliant  idea,  so  fruitful  in  later  results,  of  taking  down 
not  only  special  pieces,  but  the  general  run  of  Luther's 
conversation.  At  first  he  had  some  compunctions  about 
the  propriety  of  making  notes  a>  his  host's  table,  but  habit 
overcame  them.     He  says  : 

I  was  also  aware  that  it  was  an  audacious  offence  for  me  to 
write  down  everything  I  heard  whenever  I  stood  before  the 
table  or  sat  at  it  as  a  guest,  but  the  advantage  of  the  thing 
overcame  my  shame.  Moreover  the  Doctor  never  showed, 
even  by  a  word,  that  what  I  did  displeased  him.  Nay  more, 
I  made  the  way  for  others,  who  dared  to  do  the  same  thing, 
especially  M.  Vitus  Dietrich  and  J.  Turbicida  [Schlaginhaufen] 
whose  crumbs,  as  I  hope,  I  shall  join  to  mine,  for  the  whole 
collection  of  pious  sayings  will  be  pleasing  to  me.1 

The  same  reporter  speaks  of  a  notebook  in  which  he  kept 
the  precious  sayings,  and  Dietrich  says  that  the  notes  were 
taken  on  the  spot,  just  as  if  the  disciples  had  been  in  the 
classroom.2  Still  more  explicitly  Schlaginhaufen  observes: 
"  I  took  this  down  while  we  were  eating,  after  a  funeral."  3 
Little  discrimination  was  shown  by  the  students  who  sat 
around  notebook  in  hand,  eager  to  catch  and  transmit  to 
posterity  the  gems  which  dropped  from  their  master's  lips, 
"  which  they  esteemed  more  highly  than  the  oracles  of 
Apollo."  4  Nothing  was  too  trivial  for  them,  and  occa- 
sionally the  humor  of  the  situation  would  strike  Luther. 

1  Wrampelmeyer,  Cordatus  Tagebuch,  no.  133a.  The  Latin  at  the 
end  iis  incorrect,  hut  this  seems  to  be  the  sense ;  it  is  "  M.  Vitus  Die- 
trich et  J.  Turbicida  quorum  micas  (ut  spero)  illis  meis  conjunxero, 
omnis  multitudo  piorum  gratis  mihi  erit." 

2  Dietrich,  p.  165b.  "  Sequuntur  anno  1533  excerpta  inter  colloquen- 
dum."  Quoted  by  Preger,  Luthers  Tischreden  aus  den  Jahren  1531 
und  1532  nach  den  Aufseichnungcn  von  J  oh.  Schlaginhaufen,  Einl.,  xiv. 

.  3  Ibid.,  no.  465. 
*  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  Einl..  p.  24,  quoting  Cordatus. 


!39]  LUTHER  AND  HIS  GUESTS  ^ 

Once  when  a  widower  sent  a  messenger  to  Luther  asking 
him  for  assistance  in  the  selection  of  a  wife,  the  master, 
after  the  departure  of  the  messenger,  turned  to  his  disciple 
with  a  laugh,  and  said :  "  For  Heaven's  sake,  Schlagin- 
haufen,  put  that  down,  too!"  Schlaginhaufen  himself  re- 
cords the  incident.1 

In  this  connection  it  naturally  occurs  to  us  to  ask  whether 
Luther  really  disliked  the  practice  of  notetaking  or  not. 
In  spite  of  the  assertion  of  Cordatus  that  Luther  never 
showed  even  by  a  word  that  he  was  displeased  with  his 
disciples'  assiduity,  it  is  certain  that  at  times  he  regretted 
it.  He  was  ..ware  that  he  was  exhibited  to  the  world  in 
neglige.  "  In  St.  Augustine's  books,"  he  says,  "  one  finds 
many  words  which  flesh  and  blood  have  spoken,  and  I  must 
confess  that  I  speak  many  words  which  are  not  God's 
words,  both  when  I  preach  and  at  table."  2  Again  he  was 
probably  thinking  of  the  Table  Talk  when  he  said : 

I  pray  my  pious  thieves,  for  Christ's  sake,  not  to  let  themselves 
lightly  publish  anything  of  mine  (albeit  I  know  they  do  it  with 
an  upright,  loyal  heart)  either  during  my  lifetime  or  after  my 

death I  repeatedly  pray  them  not  to  bear  the  burden 

and  danger  of  such  a  work  without  my  public  consent.3 

1  Preger,  op.  cit.,  no.  292. 

2  Hauspostille  on  the  Gospel  for  the  Sunday  Jubilate.  Walch :  Lu- 
thers  Sammtliche  Werke,  xxi,  p.  1248.  Cf.  also  his  preface  to  the 
"Little  Sermons  to  a  Friend,"  Walch,  xii,  p.  2375:  "As  we  are  men, 
there  are  many  passages  which  are  human  and  savor  of  the  flesh.  For 
when  we  are  alone  and  dispute,  we  often  get  angry  and  God  laughs  at 
the  extraordinary  wisdom  we  display  towards  him.  I  believe  he  de- 
rives amusement  from  such  fools  as  teach  him  how  he  should  reign, 
as  I  often  have  done  and  still  do."  This  preface  to  the  Conciunculae, 
which  appeared  in  1537,  was  inserted  by  Cordatus  as  a  preface  to  his 
Notes  (Wrampelmeyer,  Einl.,  p.  41).  It  may  have  been  that  Cordatus 
was  the  friend  to  whom  it  was  addressed. 

*  Walch,  Condones  quae  dam  D.  Mart.  Luth.,  xx,  2373. 


14  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I40 

At  times  he  complained  specifically  and  bitterly  of  conversa- 
tions published  by  his  friends;  but  he  never  seems  to  have 
interfered  with  any  one  during  the  many  years  in  which  a 
large  number  of  men  wrote  down  his  sayings  in  his  presence. 
Melanchthon,  however,  on  one  occasion  rebuked  the  in- 
discriminate zeal  of  Cordatus.  The  reprimand  is  recorded 
by  the  disciple  on  whom  it  apparently  had  not  the  slightest 
effect.     He  tells  the  story  as  follows: 

I  wrote  in  my  notebook  these  words :  Luther  to  Melanchthon : 
"  Thou  art  an  orator  in  writing  but  not  in  speaking."  For  the 
candor  of  both  the  speaker  and  the  listener  pleased  me. 
Melanchthon  wished  to  persuade  him  not  to  answer  a  book 
edited  by  the  pastor  of  Cologne,  whom  Luther  calls  Meuchler 
von  Trasen.  But  what  I  wrote  did  not  please  Philip,  and 
so  when  he  had  asked  again  and  again  for  my  notebook,  where- 
in I  was  accustomed  to  write  what  I  heard,  at  length  I  gave  it 
to  him,  and  when  he  had  read  a  little  in  it  he  wrote  this 
couplet : 

Omnia  non  prodest,  Cordate,  inscribere  chartis, 
Sed  quaedam  taciturn  dissimulare  decet. 

With  quite  unconscious  humor  Cordatus  adds  in  the  next 
section  that  he  was  confounded  by  Philip's  poetry.2 

1  E.  g.,  in  the  Conciunculae  quoted  above,  where  he  complains  bitterly 
that  his  friends  have  published  sermoncs  quos  ipsiim  sub  coena  et  pran- 
diis  effudisse  during  his  illness  at  Schmalkald. 

2  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no.  133.  The  Latin,  as  generally  in  Cor- 
datus, is  confused,  but  the  point  is  perfectly  clear. 


CHAPTER  II 
The  Earlier  Reporters  of  the  Table  Talk 

Luther's  life  may  naturally  be  divided  into  two  periods 
by  his  marriage  in  June,  1525.  Each  period  has  its  own 
character,  sharply  marked  off  from  the  other,  and  each  has 
much  internal  unity.  Nine-tenths  of  his  political  activity 
fell  withih  the  first  period;  it  was  a  constant  and  fierce 
struggle;  and  by  the  time  it  was  over  the  victory  had  been 
won  and  the  great  revolt  from  Rome  was  well  under  way. 
The  second  period  was  one  of  comparative  quiet,  of  domestic 
experience,  hospitality,  preaching,  teaching  and  writing; 
not  less  interesting  than  the  more  active  part  of  Luther's 
career,  but  interesting  in  a  different  way.  It  is  not  so  much 
the  operation  of  a  great  political  force  as  the  significance  of 
a  great  man's  private  life  which  now  engages  our  attention. 

With  the  exception  of  a  doubtful  note  or  two  of  Corda- 
tus,  all  the  records  we  have  of  the  Table  Talk  fall  within 
the  second  period.  During  these  twenty  years  no  less  than 
a  dozen  men  followed  the  practice  of  reporting  their  hero's 
words  as  he  spoke  them  at  table.1     A  list  of  these  men  at 

1  We  know  who  took  notes  partly  from  the  extant  records,  partly 
from  references,  especially  the  lists  of  their  sources  given  by  two  col- 
lectors of  Table  Talk,  Mathesius  (Luther  Histories,  xii,  131b,  quoted 
by  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  13)  and  Aurifaber  (preface  to  his  printed 
edition,  reprinted  by  Walch,  op.  cit.,  xxii,  40-55).  These  lists  give  the 
names  of  three  men  who  did  not  take  notes:  Rorer  (Forstemann-Bind- 
seil,  Deutsche  Tischreden,  vol.  iv,  p.  xvi;  Losche,  Analccta  Latherana, 
p.  10),  Ferdinand  a  Maugis  (Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  xii;  Kostlin, 
op.  cit.,  ii,  618),  and  Weber  (Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  15)-  Besides  the 
141]  15 


1 6  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [142 

this  point  will  greatly  clarify  our  subsequent  discussion,  es- 
pecially if  we  put  opposite  the  name  of  each  the  dates  with- 
in which  his  notes  were  taken. 

i.  Conrad  Cordatus.      1524-1537.1 

2.  Veit  Dietrich   (Theodoricus).      1529-1535. 

3.  Johan  Schlaginhaufen  (or  Schlainhauffen,  alias  Tur- 
bicida,  alias  Ochloplectes,  alias  Typtochlios).      1 531-1532. 

4.  Anton  Lauterbach.     I53I-I539-1 

5.  Hieronymus  Weller.      1 527-1 538. 

6.  Antonius  Corvinus.      1532. 

7.  Johannes   Mathesius.      1540. 

8.  Kaspar  Heydenreich  (variously  spelled).     1 541 -1543. 

9.  Hieronymus  Besold.      1 541-1546. 

10.  Magister  Plato.      1 540-1 541. 

11.  Johannes  Stolz  (Stolsius).      1 542-1 546. 

12.  Johannes  Aurifaber   (Goldschmidt).      1545-1546.2 

men  mentioned  in  Mathesius'  and  Aurifaber's  lists,  we  know  that  Cor- 
datus (whose  notebook  is  extant)  took  notes  and  that  Corvinus  prob- 
ably did  (Preger,  op.  cit.,  no.  342).  Others  who  have  sometimes  been 
thought  to  have  taken  notes,  but  who  did  not,  are:  Morlin  (Forste- 
mann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  xix;  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Eini,  p.  15), 
Schiefer  (Lingke,  Merkzviirdige  Reisegeschichte  Luthers,  1769,  Einl.,  p. 
3;  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  xii ;  Losche,  op.  cit.,  p.  9),  Jonas 
(Kawerau,  Brief e  d.  J.  Jonas  in  Qucllengesch.  Sachsens,  vol.  15,  p.  104; 
F.  S.  Keil,  Merkwiirdige  Lebensumstdnde  Luthers,  pt.  i,  p.  161),  and 
Melanchthon  (Corpus  Rcformatorum,  xx,  519-608;  Losche,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
18,  19;  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl,  pp.  34-37). 

1  A  very  few  notes  of  Cordatus  and  Lauterbach  can  be  assigned  to 
dates  later  than  those  given  opposite  their  names,  taken  on  their  visits 
to  Wittenberg. 

2  The  notes  of  Cordatus,  Dietrich,  Schlaginhaufen  and  Lauterbach 
are  extant  in  something  like  their  original  form.  The  notes  of  Mathe- 
sius, Weller,  Heydenreich,  Besold  and  Plato  are  preserved  (each  note- 
book by  itself)  in  the  Mathesian  collection.  Corvinus  is  known  only 
in  one  note  copied  by  Schlaginhaufen.  The  notes  of  Stolz  and  Auri- 
faber have  become  indistinguishably  merged  in  the  collection  of  the 
latter. 


I43]       EARLIER  REPORTERS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  Yy 

The  twelve  men  just  enumerated  fall  into  two  distinct 
groups,  the  notes  of  six  falling  within  the  first  fourteen 
years  of  the  period  and  those  of  the  others  within  the  last 
six  years.  Cordatus  and  Lauterbach,  to  be  sure,  who  are 
included  in  the  first  group,  took  notes  on  their  visits  to 
Wittenberg  after  1 540,  but  these  sayings  are  few  and  unim- 
portant. It  is  convenient  to  give  a  short  account  of  the  in- 
dividual reporters  of  each  group,  in  order  to  get  a  clear 
picture  of  the  environment  in  which  they  worked. 

The  years  1525-39,  within  which  the  first  group  took 
notes,  were  active  and  important,  though  their  import- 
ance has  been  overshadowed  by  the  great  events  of  the 
eight  years  immediately  preceding.  Every  one  who  knows 
the  name  of  Luther,  knows  of  the  95  Theses  and  the  Diet 
of  Worms,  and  the  translation  of  the  Bible.  Only  second 
to  these  in  Luther's  fame  stand  the  appearance  before  the 
Cardinal  Legate  at  Augsburg,  the  burning  of  Pope  Leo's 
Bull  and  the  Canon  Law,  and  the  three  great  pamphlets  of 
1520.  All  of  these1  came  before  his  marriage.  We 
might  compare  Luther's  career  to  that  of  a  conqueror  in 
which  the  events  and  labors  just  spoken  of  are  the  great 
battles  by  which  a  new  country  is  subdued.  The  work 
which  follows  is  less  showy,  but  not  less  difficult;  Luther's 
problem  was  no  longer  to  conquer  new  territory,  but  to  con- 
solidate and  organize  what  had  been  already  won. 

Thus  we  see  his  efforts  in  these  years  were  chiefly  ab- 
sorbed in  regulating  and  developing  the  church  he  had 
founded;  and  in  protecting  it  first  from  the  inroads  of 
Zwingli  and  the  Swiss,  and  then  from  the  internal  strife 
which  threatened  it  with  schism.  The  two  Diets  of  Speyer, 
the  Diet  of  Augsburg  of  1530,  the  Articles  of  Marburg, 

1  The  translation  of  the  New  Testament  was  done  hy  1522,  and  that 
of  the  Old  Testament  under  way,  though  not  completed  till  1534. 


1 8  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [Izj.4 

the  Religious  Peace  of  Nuremberg,  and  the  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord mark  successive  stages  of  Luther's  participation  in  the 
evolution  of  Protestantism.  Towards  the  end  of  the  period 
the  bigamy  of  Philip  of  Hesse  begins  to  weigh  heavily  upon 
him.  His  writings  are  no  longer  the  trumpet  calls  to  arms 
which  we  hear  in  the  "Appeal  to  the  Christian  Nobility  " 
and  "  The  Babylonian  Captivity,"  but  the  catechism  and 
the  hymns  which  did  so  much  to  put  the  services  of  the 
Church  on  a  solid  foundation.  His  domestic  life,  though 
disturbed  by  fear  of  the  plague  in  1527,  was  happy,  and 
marked  by  the  birth  of  several  children. 

The  first  of  the  reporters,  Conrad  Cordatus,  was  about 
seven  years  older  than  Luther,  having  been  born  at  Weis- 
senbach in  Austria  in  1476.  After  a  number  of  years  spent 
in  wandering  and  studying  theology  in  several  places,  dur- 
ing which  he  lost  a  lucrative  ecclesiastical  office  in  1517  by 
joining  the  revolt  against  Rome,  he  finally  came  to  Witten- 
berg in  1524,  and  spent  a  year  with  Luther.  Returning 
home  he  was  imprisoned  on  account  of  his  religion  for 
nine  months,  but  escaped  and  returned  to  Wittenberg  in 
1526.  From  this  time  on  he  was  practically  a  dependent 
of  Luther's,  who  several  times  got  him  positions  which  he 
could  not  hold.  The  first  of  these  was  to  teach  in  the  new 
Academy  founded  by  Duke  Frederick  II  of  Leignitz  and 
Brieg.  The  venture  was  not  a  success,  however,  and  when 
the  Academy  failed,  Cordatus  was  again  without  occupa- 

1  A  short  biography  is  given  by  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  Einl.  The 
sources  for  his  life  have  been  collected  by  Gotze  in  Jahrcsb.  d.  Altmark. 
Vereins  f.  Gcsch.  u.  Altcrthumskundc,  vol.  xiv.  p.  57  et  scq.  (1861). 
His  Deutsch  Postille  or  Sermons  preached  at  Niemergk,  1534,  were 
published  with  a  preface  by  Melanchthon  in  1554.  Kolde,  Anal.  Luth., 
publishes  some  of  his.  letters  to  Melanchthon.  Much  material  is  found 
in  his  Notebook  of  the  Tischrcden.  Cf.  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no 
1536,  &c. 


I45]  EARLIER  REPORTERS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  1(, 

tion,  and,  after  a  short  visit  to  his  home,  returned  to  Wit- 
tenberg in  1528.  In  1529  he  was  called  to  be  second  pas- 
tor at  Zwickau;  but  a  sharp  altercation  with  the  burgo- 
master and  Council  caused  him  to  leave  "  that  Babel  "  two 
years  later.  For  ten  or  twelve  months  (after  August, 
1 531)  he  was  Luther's  guest;  then  he  obtained  an  inferior 
position  at  Niemergk  which  he  filled  till  1537,  when  his  hot 
temper  got  him  into  trouble  again.1 

While  at  Niemergk  he  maintained  constant  intercourse 
with  Wittenberg,  and  some  of  his  notes  prove  that  he  was 
still  Luther's  guest  at  times.2  In  1536  he  got  into  a  dispute 
with  Melanchthon,  whom  he  called,  with  characteristic  vio- 
lence, "  a  crab  crawling  on  the  cross."  3 

In  1537  he  was  called  to  Eisleben,  and  from  that  time  on 
filled  several  positions  at  a  distance  from  Wittenberg,  until 
his  death,  soon  after  that  of  Luther,  in  1546. 

In  reporting  Luther's  sayings  he  showed  more  zeal  than 
judgment,  writing  down  whatever  came  in  his  way, 
whether  he  heard  it  himself  or  learned  it  from  some  one 
else.  He  may  have  begun  the  practice  as  early  as  1524, 
but  he  did  not  take  many  notes  until  1532,  when  he  spent 
a  year  with  Luther  between  his  pastorates  at  Zwickau  and 
Niemergk.  After  his  call  to  Niemergk  in  1533  he  made 
occasional  visits  to  Wittenberg,  during  which  he  took 
some  notes,  closing  the  record  in  1537,  when  he  went  to 
Eisleben. 

His  intimacy  with  Luther  is  proved  by  anecdotes  of 
which  the  notebook  is  full.     He  affectionately  relates  that 

1  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no.  1462.     He  complains  of  his  hard  life  at 
Niemergk  and  Luther  comforts  him. 

2  These  dates,  however,  are  uncertain. 

3  Kolde,  Anal.  Luth.,  p.  279.     Cf.  Kostlin,  ii,  455.     They  were  after- 
wards reconciled  and  Melanchthon  edited  his  sermons. 


20  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I46 

Luther  often  offered  him  his  silver  goblets  in  case  of  need. 
Again  when  he  and  Hausmann  were  sitting  with  Luther, 
the  master  remarked  that  a  gift  of  200  gulden  would  not 
please  him  so  much  as  their  company.1  The  pair  resem- 
bled each  other  in  fearlessness  and  violence.  Luther  well 
characterized  Cordatus  (and  unconsciously  himself)  when 
he  said :  "  When  God  needs  a  legate  who  shall  set  forth 
his  affairs  strongly  and  dare  to  correct  the  vicious,  he  uses 
the  wrath  of  some  person  like  Cordatus,  a  man  hard  in 
speech  and  temper."  2 

His  irascibility  must  have  made  him  at  times  an  un- 
pleasant guest.  He  was  generally  on  bad  terms  with 
Kathe,  and  sometimes  with  his  fellow  guests.  One  day 
the  conversation  waxed  so  interesting  that  Luther  forgot 
to  eat.  When  Kathe  tried  to  recall  her  husband  to  mun- 
dane affairs  he  replied  with  some  warmth  that  she  ought  to 
say  the  Lord's  prayer  before  she  spoke.  "  Then  I,"  de- 
murely observes  Cordatus,  "  tried  to  bring  him  back  to  the 
former  subject  of  conversation  by  asking  him  about  Cam- 
panus  and  his  redundant  style."  3 

When  Luther,  to  his  regret,  could  not  help  his  friend 
Hausmann  with  a  small  loan,  Cordatus  had  the  bad  grace 
to  ask  him  why  he  had  just  let  Kathe  buy  a  garden,  to 
which  Luther  replies,  rather  weakly,  that  he  could  not  with- 
stand her  prayers  and  tears.4  Again  Cordatus  records  a 
biting  remark  about  Kathe's  loquacity.  "  He  called  the 
long  speeches  of  his  wife  '  a  woman's  sermons  '  (malierum 
praedicationes) ,  because  she  would  constantly  interrupt  his 

1  Wrampelmeyer,  nos.  56  and  57.     Cf.  for  other  anecdotes  nos.  989, 
1408,  253,  133a. 
ilbid.,  Einl.,  p.  13  et  seq. 
8  Ibid.,  nos.  in,  nia,  nib. 
*  Ibid. 


I47]       EARLIER  REPORTERS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  2\ 

best  sayings.     And  Dr.   Jonas  has  the  same  virtue   [  ?  of 
interrupting]."  * 

Occasionally  Luther  felt  called  upon  to  administer  a  mild 
rebuke,  as  when  Cordatus  asks  for  an  explanation  of  the 
expression  concupiscentia  oculornm.  Again  Luther  tells 
him  plainly,  "  You  wish  to  be  master  and  perchance 
to  be  praised,  and  thus  you  are  tempted."  2 

Cordatus  was  middle-aged  before  he  knew  Luther. 
Dietrich,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  mere  youth  when  he 
first  met  him.  Born  at  Nuremberg,  1506,  he  came  to  Wit- 
tenberg in  1522,3  with  the  intention  of  studying  medicine, 
a  vocation  which  Luther  4  induced  him  to  abandon  for  theo- 
logy. In  1527  he  became  a  sort  of  amanuensis  to  Luther, 
accompanying  him  in  this  capacity  to  Koburg  in  1530,  and 
thence  to  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  in  the  same  year.5  He 
lived  at  Luther's  house  from  1529  to  1534,  leaving  in  this 
year  partly,  perhaps,  on  account  of  a  quarrel  with  Kathe,6 
but  also  doubtless  because  he  was  contemplating  marriage, 
which  took  place  in  the  next  year.  He  was  called  to  the 
pastorate  of  St.  Sebald,  in  Nuremberg,  in  May,  1535,  by  the 
Council  of  that  city.  In  this  position  he  still  maintained 
close   relations   with   Luther   and    Melanchthon.     In    1537 

1  Wrampelmeyer,  no.  120.  Jonas  reciprocated  by  calling  him  a  fire- 
brand.    Corpus  Reformatorum,  iii,  1500. 

2  Ibid.,  nos,  74,  75,  115,  116,  161,  162. 

3  This  date  is  given  by  Kroker,  EinL,  p.  8.  Herzog  in  Allegmcine 
Deutsche  Biographie  gives  1527.  My  account  is  taken  partly  from 
Herzog,  partly  from  Kostlin,  and  partly  from  Kroker,  who  used  the  un- 
published Tagebuch  and  corrected  some  errors  in  previous  accounts. 
A  Life  by  Storbel  came  out  in  1772.  His  correspondence  is  in  Corpus 
Reformatorum. 

4  Dietrich,  fol.  186,  quoted  by  Kostlin,  ii,  p.  200,  note  I,  "vocatio  qua 
me  a  medicina  ad  theologiam  vocaverat." 

5  Kostlin,  ii,  514,  523.     Herzog  is  in  error  in  Allg.  Deut.  Bib. 

6  Cf.  Kroker,  EinL,  8. 


22.  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I4g 

he  subscribed  to  the  Schmalkaldic  Articles  on  behalf  of  his 
Church.  Ten  years  later  he  attended  the  Colloquium  at 
Regensburg. 

Dietrich  was  drawn  into  several  theological  quarrels.1 
Like  Cordatus,  he  was  a  quick-tempered  man,  and  took  any 
contradiction  of  his  views  much  to  heart.  His  last  years 
were  embittered  by  the  triumph  of  his  enemies  and  broken 
by  ill-health.     He  died  at  Nuremberg  in  March,  1549. 

He  wrote  little  of  his  own,  but  was  an  active  editor  and 
translator  of  Luther's  writings.2  His  own  notes  and  the 
copies  he  made  from  those  of  others  are  extant  either  in 
their  original  form  or  in  copious  extracts.3  They  testify 
his  constant  attendance  on  his  master.  He  nursed  him 
through  the  severe  illness  which  attacked  Luther  in  1530, 
after  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.  If  we  may  believe  the  man  of 
God,  this  affliction  was  due  to  the  direct  interposition  of 
the  devil,  whom  he  saw  in  the  form  of  a  fiery  snake  hang- 
ing from  the  roof  of  a  neighboring  tower.  With  his 
habitual  shiftiness,  however,  the  old  Serpent  changed  his 
form  into  that  of  a  star  when  Luther  endeavored  to  point 
him  out  to  his  disciple.4 

Johann  Schlaginhaufen,  a  native  of  Neunberg  in  the 
Upper  Palatinate,  makes  his  first  appearance  in  May, 
1520,  when  he  matriculated  at  Wittenberg.5     He  was  ap- 

1  The  first  of  these  was  on  the  question  of  private  vs.  general  abso- 
lution, Osiander  supporting  the  former  and  Dietrich  the  latter.  The 
second  was  on  the  elevation  of  the  Elements.  The  restoration  of  this 
practice  at  Nuremberg,  1549,  broke  his  health. 

2  Herzog,  loc.  cit.     Cf.  Kostlin,  ii,  157. 

8  His  notes  are  not  printed.  Seidemann  prepared  them  for  the  press 
and  his  copy  was  used  by  Kostlin.     Cf.  infra. 

4  Dietrich,  fol.  143,  quoted  by  Kostlin,  ii,  206. 

6  G.  Bossert,  in  Ztschr.  f.  kirch.  Wiss.,  1887,  p.  354  et  seq.  New 
material  on  his  life  added  by  Preger,  Einl.,  p.  vi. 


149]  EARLIER  REPORTERS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  2t, 

parently  slow  of  study,  for  the  next  time  he  emerges,  eleven 
years  later,  he  is  still  a  student,  and  a  table  companion  of 
Luther  besides,  as  we  know  from  his  notes  of  1531  and 
1532.  In  the  latter  year  he  was  employed  at  Zahna,  a 
mile  from  Wittenberg,  whence  he  kept  up  an  intimate  rela- 
tion with  his  former  host.  Ill-health  and  poverty  clouded 
his  sojourn  here,  which  was,  however,  short,  as  he  was 
called  in  December,  1533,  to  the  more  promising  field  of 
Kothen,  as  pastor  of  St.  Jacob.  Prince  Wolfgang  of  An- 
halt-Kothen  made  him  superintendent,  but  did  not  support 
him  in  the  plan  of  church  visitation  he  attempted  to  intro- 
duce. This  complicated  the  situation,  and  being  still  trou- 
bled by  ill-health  and  small  means,  he  sought  another  posi- 
tion, and  obtained,  at  Luther's  recommendation,  the  pastor- 
ate of  Worlitz.  Here  his  health  improved,  his  compen- 
sation was  more  adequate,  and  his  plans  of  church  visita- 
tion and  remodelling  the  service  on  that  of  Wittenberg 
worked  smoothly  and  successfully. 

With  his  friend  Helt,  Schlaginhaufen  went  to  Schmal- 
kalden  in  1537  as  a  representative  of  his  church,  for  which 
he  subscribed  to  the  Articles.  He  then  went  home  with 
Luther,  who  was  suffering  terribly  from  the  stone,  from 
which  he  hardly  expected  to  recover,  but  of  which  he  was 
suddenly  relieved  at  Tambach.  The  disciple  carried  the 
news  of  his  master's  recovery  back  to  the  Prince,  who  had 
stayed  behind,  and  was  so  full  of  it  that,  as  he  galloped  into 
the  town,  he  shouted  triumphantly  to  the  Papal  Nuncio, 
whom  he  saw  looking  out  of  a  window,  Lutherus  vivit! 1 

The  date  of  Schlaginhaufen's  death,  which  must  have 
been  later  than  1549,2  is  not  precisely  known.     His  authen- 

1  Kostlin,  ii,  399,  400. 

2  As  we  know  from  a  letter  of  Jonas  to  Chancellor  Rabe,  in  Kawerau, 
Briefwechsel  d.  J.  Jonas,  ii,  287. 


24  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [IS0 

tic  literary  remains  are  confined  to  a  sermon,  in  a  rousing 
style,  preserved  in  the  archives  at  Zerbst,  and  a  book 
of  Tischreden  which  we  possess  in  a  copy  possibly  made  by 
his  son-in-law,  J.  Obendorfer  of  Kothen.1 

Schlaginhaufen  won  a  place  in  Luther's  household  by  many 
a  little  service  gladly  performed  in  return  for  his  entertain- 
ment, for  which  he  was  too  poor  to  pay.  It  is  pleasant  to 
believe  that  he  got  along  with  Kathe  and  the  children  better 
than  some  of  the  other  guests.  When  Luther  fainted,  at 
the  election  of  Rector,  May  i,  1532,  Kathe  sent  the  little 
girl  to  notify  him  first,  and  then  Melanchthon  and  Jonas.2 

The  poor  fellow  was  much  troubled  with  melancholy, 
which  took  the  form  of  unceasing  lamentation  over  his 
sins.  Luther,  whose  own  early  struggles  had  given  him  a 
fellow-feeling  for  his  disciples,  was  wondrous  kind  and  pa- 
tient in  comforting  him.  When  Schlaginhaufen  fainted  on 
December  31,  1531,  Luther  indulged  in  a  violent  invective 
against  the  malice  of  Satan,  and  prescribed  various  meth- 
ods of  foiling  him.  When  restored  to  a  semi-conscious 
state,  the  victim  of  the  diabolic  machination  could  only 
groan  out  "  My  sins!  my  sins!"  but  a  quarter  of  an  hour 
more  of  exhortation  and  ghostly  comfort  finally  enabled 
him  to  rise  and  go  home.3 

1  Bossert  attributes  to  him  a  witty  satire  on  Eck.  written  1530,  en- 
titled Eckii  Dedolati  ad  Caesaream  Maiestatem  Oratio.  {Cf.  Pirckhei- 
mer's  Gehobelte  Eck  or  "  Rounded-off  Corner.")  This  was  probably 
not  his  however,  but  by  a  writer  with  a  similar  name — Schlahinhaufen. 
Cf.  Preger,  Einl.,  vi  et  seq. 

-  Preger,  no.  77.  He  obtained  the  degree  of  master  at  an  unknown 
date.     Cf.  ibid.,  no.  323. 

3  Seidemann,  p.  57.  Cf.  Luther's  letter  to  him  Mar.  10.  1534,  De 
Wette,  Luther's  Brief e,  vi,  148,  wrongly  quoted  by  Preger  as  Mar.  10, 
1532,  De  Wette,  iv,  494. 


I5i]       EARLIER  REPORTERS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  2$ 

We  now  come  to  Anton  Lauterbach,  the  most  copious  of 
all  the  notetakers,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  energetic  of 
later  editors.  Born  at  Stolpen  in  1502,  of  well-to-do  par- 
ents, he  matriculated  at  Leipzig  in  the  summer-semester 
of  1 5 17  as  of  the  "  Meissen  "  nation.1  He  came  to  Wit- 
tenberg in  September,  1521,2  for  a  short  visit,  but  he  did 
not  become  a  regular  student  there  until  April,  1529.  He 
gives  us  much  the  same  testimony  as  Luther  on  the  pre- 
valent lack  of  Biblical  teaching.  "  I  was  a  bachelor  be- 
fore I  ever  heard  any  text  from  the  Bible,  which  was  a 
mighty  scarce  book  in  those  days."  3  He  took  his  mas- 
ter's degree  at  Wittenberg,  and  became  a  frequenter  of 
Luther's  table  in  1531. 

In  1533  Lauterbach  was  called  to  fill  the  office  of  deacon 
at  Leisnig;  but  a  quarrel  with  the  pastor  caused  him  to 
seek,  and  obtain,  a  similar  position  at  Wittenberg.4  Here 
he  was  married,  in  the  same  year,  to  a  nun  named  Agnes, 
and  probably  lived  with  his  father-in-law,  at  least  for  a 
while.  He  was,  however  ,a  frequent  guest  at  Luther's,  if 
not  a  constant  boarder  for  many  years.  During  1538,  es- 
pecially, he  noted  sayings  of  Luther  for  almost  every  day. 
He  had  similar  Tagebiicher,  though  not  so  full,  for  other 
years. 

His  regular  connection  with  Luther  was  terminated  in 

1  His  father  may  have  been  the  burgomaster  of  that  name.  My  ac- 
count is  taken  mostly  from  Seidemann,  Einl.,  p.  v  et  seq. — an  elliptical 
series  of  references  to  authorities,  with  a  few  words  thrown  in  here 
and  there.  Anton  tells  an  interesting  story  of  his  father  and  Tetzel. 
Bindseil,  iii,  248. 

2  If  he  is  not  mistaken  in  saying  so;  he  may  have  confused  the  date, 
or  1521  may  be  a  slip  for  1541. 

3  Note  in  Bindseil,  i,  136  (not  in  Dresden  MS.). 

4  In  1536.  See  De  Wette,  iv,  583,  672 ;  v,  37,  with  Kroker,  Einl.,  9 
Anm. 


26  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [152 

July,  1539,  when  he  himself  was  called  to  Pirna,  an  event 
which  he  relates  in  the  following  terms : 

When  Master  Anthonius  Lauterbach  was  called  away  by  the 
Senator  of  Pirna,  he  bade  adieu  to  his  teachers,  and  asked  that 
he  might  be  kept  as  deacon  still.  Doctor  M.  Luther  answered: 
"  It  seemed  good  to  God  to  call  thee  to  the  pastorate  of  Pirna, 
and  thou  doest  well  that  thou  obeyest,  and  although  we  would 
willingly  keep  thee  here,  we  may  not  act  contrary  to  his  will."  1 

He  returned  to  Wittenberg  once  a  year  to  see  his  old  hero, 
and  take  down  a  few  more  of  his  precious  words.2  After 
a  long  and  acceptable  ministry  in  Pirna  he  died  there  in 
1569.3 

Lauterbach's  hobby  was  recording,  collecting  and  arrang- 
ing Luther's  sayings.  Kathe's  shrewd  remark  4  that  of  all 
the  disciples  whom  Luther  taught  gratis  Lauterbach  pro- 
fited the  most,  was  fully  justified,  at  least  if  we  may  judge 
by  the  quantity  of  material  which  he  has  left  us.  He  took 
notes  himself  pretty  constantly  from  1531-1539,  and  also 
on  the  short  visits  he  later  made  to  Wittenberg.  Besides 
his  own  notes  he  made  a  large  collection  of  the  notes  of  his 
fellow-students.  Finally  he  endeavored  to  blend  all  these 
sayings  into  one  great  collection,  a  piece  of  work  which, 
in  spite  of  repeated  efforts,  he  could  never  complete  to  his 
own  satisfaction.  No  less  than  four  redactions  of  such  a 
collection  have  come  down  to  us,  one  of  which  was  the 
basis  of  the  famous  edition  of  Aurifaber.5 

1  Bindseil,  iii,  127. 

2  Proved  by  notes  of  his  taken  in  these  years. 

3  Seidemann,  p.  viii.     His  bust  may  be  still  seen  over  the  sacristy. 

4  Kroker,  no.  332. 

5  For  his  notebooks,  see  infra,  chapter  iv;  for  his  collections,  chap- 
ter v. 


I53]       EARLIER  REPORTERS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  2J 

Hieronymus  Weller  was  born  at  Freiberg  in  1499.  He 
studied  twice  at  Wittenberg,  the  second  time  in  1525,  when, 
under  Luther's  influence,  he  changed  from  Jurisprudence 
to  Theology.  In  1527  he  came  into  Luther's  house,  where 
he  lived  until  1536,  when  his  marriage  with  Anna  am  Steig 
necessitated  his  setting  up  housekeeping  for  himself.  In 
May,  1538,  he  left  Wittenberg  to  become  court  preacher  to 
the  Prince  of  Anhalt  and  Dessau;  in  1539  he  was  called 
to  his  native  place  as  Professor  of  Theology,  in  which  situ- 
ation he  lived  until  his  death  in  1572.1 

Weller  is  a  less  conspicuous  and  a  less  amiable  figure 
than  some  of  Luther's  other  guests.  He  took  little  part  in 
the  conversation,  scarcely  any  of  his  remarks  having  been 
recorded.  On  one  occasion  he  is  "  consoled  "  by  Luther 
in  a  way  somewhat  disparaging  to  his  character,  and  on 
another  the  company  reflects  rather  severely  on  his 
cowardice.2  His  notes  must  have  fallen  between  1528 
and  1537.  A  considerable  number  of  them  have  come 
down  to  us,3  but  they  are  of  little  value,  as  they  were  taken 
in  a  slovenly  way,  and  mixed  at  random  with  notes  copied 
from  others,  especially  from  Lauterbach. 

Antonius  Corvinus  is  known  to  us  only  through  one  note 
which  Schlaginhaufen  says  he  copied  from  him.4  It  is  an 
explanation  of  what  the  remission  of  sins  is.  If  he  really 
took  notes,  they  were  probably  few,  especially  as  he  was 
never  long  at  Wittenberg. 

Born  at  Marburg,  1501,5  he  first  appears  to  history  as 

1  Kroker,  Einl..  10.  2  Seidemann,  pp.  71,   141. 

3  At  least  if  Kroker  is  right  in  identifying  sections  4  and  8  of  his 
publication  with  Weller's  notes. 

4  Preger,  no.  342. 

5  My  account  of  Corvinus  is  taken  partly  from  the  Allg.  Deut.  Bib., 
partly  from  Kroker,  Einl.,  p.  11.     Corvinus  wrote  an  account  of  Eras- 


28  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I54 

a  monk  in  the  cloisters  of  Rigdagshausen  and  Loccum, 
where  he  probably  obtained  his  education.  The  attraction 
of  Luther's  teaching  brought  him  to  Wittenberg  for  a  short 
time  in  1525.  We  see  him  in  Marburg  in  1526  as  preacher 
and  professor  in  the  new  University  of  that  city.  Later 
he  became  connected  with  Philip  of  Hesse,  and  took  part 
in  the  Conventions  of  Ziegenhain  (1532),  Cassel  (1535), 
where  Melanchthon  and  Bucer  had  a  disputation,  and 
Schmalkalden  (1537).  He  was  active  in  propagating  the 
Reformation  beyond  the  borders  of  Hesse,  for  which  the 
enemies  of  the  new  faith  imprisoned  him  from  1549  to 
1553.  Shortly  after  his  release,  at  the  intercession  of  Duke 
Albert  of  Prussia,  he  died. 

mus's  attempt  to  reconcile  the  two  Churches  about  1533.  It  is  de- 
scribed as  "  impartial  and  conciliatory,"  which  is  hard  to  believe  when 
we  learn  that  Luther  wrote  an  introduction  to  it.     Kostlin,  ii,  320. 


CHAPTER  III 
The  Younger  Group  of  Reporters 

In  spite  of  domestic  sorrow  and  increasing  ill-health, 
the  last  years  of  Luther's  life  show  no  relaxation  of  that 
indomitable  spirit  and  energy  which  had  characterized  the 
vigor  of  his  young  manhood.  Vexed  by  the  bigamy  of 
Philip,  and  the  use  made  of  it  by  the  "  Papists,"  and  wor- 
ried by  the  illness  of  Melanchthon  in  1540,  the  religious 
conferences  at  Worms  and  Regensburg  in  1541  and  the 
measures  necessary  to  discipline  the  Reformed  Church 
made  severe  demands  upon  his  strength  in  the  following 
years.  He  found  time,  however,  to  revise  his  translation 
of  the  Bible,  and  to  produce  a  number  of  polemic  and  homi- 
lectic  works.  His  sufferings  from  the  stone  became  con- 
stantly worse,  and  his  feelings  were  harrowed,  at  first  by 
the  dangerous  illness  of  his  wife  in  1540,  and  still  more  by 
the  death  of  his  favorite  child,  Magdalene,  at  the  age  of 
thirteen,  in  1542.  We  find  him  as  active  as  ever  in  the  last 
year  of  his  life,  and  only  a  few  weeks  before  his  death  in 
February,  1546,  he  undertook  a  journey  to  Eisleben. 

One  by  one  all  the  young  men  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  take  notes  at  his  table  left  him,  and  for  a  while,  at  the 
end  of  1539,  there  was  a  time  when  his  conversations  were 
not  reported  at  all,  which  one  would  think  would  have  been 
a  great  relief  to  him.  Other  students  soon  appeared,  how- 
ever, to  renew  the  practice,  and  Lauterbach  and  Cordatus 
made  occasional  visits  during  which  they  would  improve  the 
convivial  hour  by  collecting  a  few  notes  in  their  old  way. 

Luther  probably  entertained  his  students  gratuitously. 
155]  29 


3<D  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [^6 

There  is  never  any  mention  of  board  bills  in  the  Table  Talk, 
and  when  Luther  speaks  of  a  financial  transaction  between 
a  student  and  himself,  the  student  is  usually  the  beneficiary.1 
Doubtless  some  of  them,  as  Dietrich,  Lauterbach,  and  Auri- 
faber,  paid  for  their  entertainment  in  services  as  secretaries. 
The  relation  of  famulus  is  one  which  has  lasted  to  the 
present  day,  and  is  immortalized  in  the  person  of  Faust's 
Wagner.  Other  students,  as  perhaps  poor  Schlaginhaufen, 
may  have  been  taken  for  charity,  and  so  expected  to  be 
ready  to  do  odd  jobs  in  return :  possibly  Cordatus  would 
have  been  kept  as  a  well-known  theologian  and  sufferer  for 
the  Protestant  cause.  Luther's  carelessness  and  generosity 
in  money  matters  is  well  established ;  but  he  may  have  taken 
something  from  those  of  his  guests  who  could  afford  it, 
rather  however,  in  the  way  of  gifts,  than  of  stipulated  rent 
or  board.2 

Of  the  younger  group  of  reporters,  Johannes  Mathesius, 
who  was  to  rival  Lauterbach  in  the  diligence  with  which  he 
collected  Luther's  Table  Talk,  and  to  surpass  him  in  the 
discrimination  with  which  he  arranged  it,  was  first  on  the 
scene.  His  father  was  a  Councilor  of  Rochlitz,  where  he 
was  born  in  1504.3    Johann  attended  the  so-called  "trivial" 

1  As  where  he  records  having  paid  something  to  have  a  student's 
room  done  over.  Hausrechnung,  De  Wette,  op.  cit.,  vi,  328.  This 
shows  that  Plato  (the  student  in  question)  roomed  as  well  as  boarded 
with  Luther. 

2  Kostlin,  ii,  498  et  seq.,  gives  a  full  account  of  Luther's  means  of 
support,  chief  of  which  was  his  salary  from  the  Elector  of  300  florins 
besides  something  "  in  kind."  He  also  made  a  profit  from  his  garden 
and  brewery  and  received  occasional  gifts.  The  translator  of  Kostlin 
(Chas.  Scribner  &  Sons),  whose  name  is  not  given,  says  that  Luther, 
like  other  professors,  took  boarders  for  pay.  1  am  unable  to  find  this 
in  the  original.  Professor  Calvin  Thomas  kindly  informs  me  that  it 
was  unusual  for  poor  students  to  pay;  and  it  may  be  that  the  practice 
of  entertaining  them  was  a  survival  of  the  old  monastic  custom. 

3  His  life,  which  I  have  consulted,  was  published  by  G.  Losche  under 


lcy-\  THE  YOUNGER  GROUP  OF  REPORTERS  31 

school,  (i.  e.  school  in  which  the  elements  or  Trivium  were 
taught),  and,  after  1521,  the  Latin  school  at  Nuremberg. 
During  the  years  1 523-1 525  he  studied  at  Ingolstadt,  from 
whence  he  drifted  into  Bavaria,  where  he  became  converted 
to  the  Protestant  cause.  The  renown  of  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  drew  him  to  Wittenberg  in  1529,  but  he  did 
not,  at  this  time,  come  into  close  relations  with  his  teach- 
ers. In  1530  he  was  called  as  Baccalaureus  to  the 
school  at  Altenberg,  and  in  1532  was  promoted  to  the 
headmastership  of  the  Latin  school  at  Joachimsthal,  a  min- 
ing town  which  had  recently  sprung  up.  Although  his 
beneficent  activity  in  this  position  drew  many  scholars  and 
spread  the  fame  of  the  school  and  its  head,  he  had  always 
felt  a  preference  for  the  clerical  calling,  and  when  about 
thirty-five  years  old  the  opportunity  came  to  him  to  follow 
his  inclination.  The  providential  means  of  fulfilling  his 
pious  wishes  was  a  lucky  speculation  in  mines  1  which  by 
1540  had  enabled  him  to  realize  enough  to  re-enter  Witten- 
berg as  a  theological  student.  The  recommendations  of 
Jonas  and  Rorer  got  him  the  much-prized  honor  of  a  seat 
at  Luther's  table. 

Mathesius  has  been  called,  though  incorrectly,  Luther's 
famulus.2  How  long  he  was  his  guest  is  not  certainly 
known,  but  probably  no  longer  than  from  May  to  Novem- 
ber, which  is  the  period  covered  by  his  notes  of  the  Table 
Talk.     That  he  was  still  occasionally  invited  to  Luther's 

the  title,  Johannes  Mathesius.  Ein  Lebens-  und  Sittenbild  aus  der  Ref- 
ormationseit  (last  edition  1904).  The  same  scholar  published  his  Aus- 
gewdhlte  Werke,  4  Bd.,  Prag,  1904  (2d  edition).  Short  lives  of  Math- 
esius are  given  in  Kroker,  Einl,  p.  11  et  seq.,  and  Losche,  Anal.,  p.  7 
et  seq. 

1  He  became  a  partner  in  the  lucrative  mining  business  of  Matthes 
Sax  in  1538. 

2  Losche,  Anal,  p.  7,  n.  4;  Kroker,  p.  11  et  seq. 


32  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [^g 

table,  we  know  from  the  fact  that  in  the  lectures  he  later 
gave  on  Luther's  life,  he  sometimes  relates  anecdotes  of  his 
hero's  conversations  from  the  years  1541  and  1542.1  The 
reason  he  had  to  leave  the  house  in  November  was  due  to 
the  circumstance  that  he  had  collected  a  number  of  pupils 
to  tutor.  At  first  Luther  kindly  took  the  pupils  with  the 
master;  boarding  as  many  as  four  at  one  time,  but  when 
Mathesius  added  still  others  he  saw  he  had  to  draw  the  line 
somewhere  and  the  promising  boarding  schol  left  the  house 
to  seek  some  less  inspiring,  if  more  expensive,  refectory.2 

After  taking  the  degree  of  master  in  September,  1540, 
he  spent  nineteen  months  more  in  study,  and  then  returned 
to  Joachimsthal  in  the  capacity  of  deacon.  He  visited 
Luther  in  the  spring  of  1 545  and  later  became  pastor  of  the 
church  at  Joachimsthal,  where  he  died  in  October,  1565. 
During  his  later  life  he  made  a  collection  of  Tischreden 
taken  clown  by  others,  and  added  them  to  his  own. 

We  have  already  seen  in  what  enthusiastic  terms  he 
speaks  of  the  privilege  of  eating  with  Luther,  and  hearing 
him  converse.3  His  statement,  made  long  afterwards 
in  a  sermon,  that  the  disciples  would  not  speak  until  spoken 
to,  and  that  then  it  was  usually  Schiefer  who  answered  for 
the  company,  is  curiously  borne  out  in  his  notes.  He 
hardly  ever  mentions  himself  or  any  of  the  younger  men 
as  saying  a  word;  the  name  of  Schiefer  however,  appears 
often.  We  observe  too,  that  a  greater  number  of  jokes 
are  recorded  in  his  notes  than  in  any  of  the  earlier  note- 
books, a  pleasant  proof  that  Luther  was  not  weighed  down 

1  The  Luther  Histories.  Out  of  32  pages,  26  are  devoted  to  anec- 
dotes of  the  year  1540,  4  to  1541,  and  2  to  1542. 

2  Kroker,  Einl.,  p.  40,  quoting  Luth.  Hist.,  xiv,  165b,  and  xvii,  209. 
See  also  Kroker,  no.  167. 

3  Supra,  p.  10. 


I59]  THE  Y0UNGER  GROUP  OF  REPORTERS  33 

by  the  cares  of  his  declining  years,  and  an  incidental  indica- 
tion of  the  increasing  reverence  in  which  he  was  held.  The 
first  reporters  had  noted  down  only  serious  remarks,  now 
facetious,  even  damaging  ones,  are  considered  worthy  of 
record.1 

He  himself  was  less  zealous  in  taking  notes  at  first  than 
he  was  afterwards,  and  occasionally  missed  a  good  chance, 
as  we  see  in  an  anecdote  in  a  sermon  he  preached  many 
years  later.  He  relates  there  that  on  Whitsuntide,  1540, 
he  heard  Luther  recount  the  story  of  his  life  up  to  the  Diet 
of  Worms.  Of  this  story,  which  impressed  itself  so  deeply 
on  his  memory,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Tischreden.2 

Kaspar  Heydenreich,  another  of  the  reporters,  was  born 
in  Freiberg,  15 16.  He  was  the  successor  of  Mathesius  in 
the  headmastership  at  Joachimsthal  in  1540,  but  resigned 
this  position  in  1541,  and  went  to  Wittenberg,  where  he 
took  the  degree  of  master  on  September  15  of  the  same 
year.  On  October  24,  1543,  he  was  called  to  the  position 
of  court  preacher  to  the  Duchess  Katharina,  widow  of 
Henry  the  Pious,  whose  residence  was  Freiberg.  He  fol- 
lowed her  later  to  Torgau,  where  he  became  superinten- 
dent. Here  he  died  in  his  seventieth  year  in  1586.  A  con- 
siderable number  of  his  notes  falling  between  1541  and 
1543  found  their  way  later  into  the  Mathesian  collection.3 

1  For  jokes,  see  Kroker,  nos.  3,  27,  90,  94,  95,  96,  99,  &c.  We  also 
see  Luther's  preoccupation  with  Philip's  'bigamy  during  this  period. 
Cf.  ibid.,  nos.  181,  182,  188,  189,  200,  206,  210,  &c. 

2  Luther  Histories,  xiii,  147a.  (Quoted  by  Kroker.)  It  is  possible, 
of  course,  that  he  may  have  been  mistaken  in  the  date. 

3  A  short  notice  of  his  life  is  found  in  Kroker,  Einl.,  p.  13.  His 
authority  is  K.  G.  Dietmann :  Die  gesamte  der  ungedndcrten  Augsp. 
Confession  sugethane  Priesterschaft  in  dem  Churfiirstenthum  Sachsen. 
Bd.  4,  P-  738. 


34  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [^o 

Hieronymus  Besold  was  born  at  Nuremberg  about  1520. 
He  came  to  Wittenberg  to  study  in  1537  and  attached  him- 
self to  Melanchthon  with  whom  he  soon  became  a  favorite. 
He  did  not  begin  his  notes  until  after  1540,  however,  and 
only  a  few  of  them,  belonging  to  the  year  1544,  have  sur- 
vived, in  the  Mathesian  Collection.  He  was  still  Luther's 
guest  at  the  time  of  the  Reformer's  death,  after  which  he 
went  to  board  with  Melanchthon.  Through  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  latter,  he  obtained  a  position  at  Nuremberg  in 
November,  1546.  His  career  was  checkered,  due  to  his 
varying  attitude  on  the  Interim.  In  1555  he  took  the  opin- 
ion contrary  to  that  of  his  father-in-law,  Osiander,  and 
signed  the  Confessio  Anti-Osiandrina.  In  1562  he  was 
carried  off  by  the  plague.1 

He  completed  the  work,  left  unfinished  by  Dietrich's 
death,  of  editing  the  Enarationes  in  Genesin.  His  notes 
are  of  little  value.  It  is  painful  to  discover  that  he  was, 
like  Cordatus  and  Dietrich,  on  bad  terms  with  Kathe,  whom 
he  considered  a  "  domineering,  avaricious  woman,"  and  of 
whom  he  stood  in  awe  at  first.  Later  their  relations  im- 
proved, and  Kathe  used  him  to  perform  some  little  house- 
hold commissions,  a  willing  return  on  his  part,  for  the  hos- 
pitality shown  him.2 

Of  Master  Plato,  whom  Mathesius  speaks  of  as  one  who 
took  notes  after  him,  we  know  but  little.  He  was  prob- 
ably Georgius  Plato  Hamburgensis  who  took  his  master's 
degree  at  Wittenberg,  September,  1537.  Luther  speaks  of 
paying  five  florins  to  renovate  his  room  in  1542,  which 
would  indicate  that  he  not  only  boarded  but  lodged  with 

1  Forstemann-Bindseil,  vol.  iv,  p.  xiv;  Kroker,  Einl.,  p.  13.  Only  19 
sayings  are  attributed  to  him.     (Kroker,  nos.  260-271.) 

2  Kostlin,  ii,  496. 


161]  THE  YOUNGER  GROUP  OF  REPORTERS  35 

his  professor.  His  notes  fall  in  1540.  He  followed  the 
bad  practice  which  we  discovered  in  Cordatus,  of  introduc- 
ing the  notes  of  others  freely  among  his  own,  taking  Mathe- 
sius  especially  as  a  source  from  whom  to  copy.  We  know 
his  record  in  three  copies,  one  that  used  by  Melanchthon 
later  in  giving  his  lectures.  Luther  speaks  of  him  as  an 
ardent  opponent  of  the  Papacy.1 

Johannes  Stolz  was  a  Wittenberger  by  birth.  He  was 
matriculated  as  a  student  at  that  university  in  the  winter- 
semester  of  1 533-1 534-  In  1537  he  went  with  Jacob 
Schenk  to  Freiburg,  but  soon  returned.  He  took  his  mas- 
ter's degree  at  Wittenberg,  September  18,  1539,  and  three 
days  later  was  called  to  the  pastorate  at  Jessen,  but  shortly 
after  returned  to  Wittenberg  as  docent.  In  1546  he  was 
dean  of  the  Philosophical  Faculty.  In  1548  he  was  court 
preacher  at  Weimar.  He  died  late  in  1558  or  in  1559. 
His  notes  have  become  indistinguishably  lost  in  the  Auri- 
faber  collection.  They  must  have  fallen  between  1542  and 
1546  when  he  was  with  Luther.2 

Johannes  Aurifaber,  the  last  of  the  reporters,  and  the 
first  and  most  famous  of  the  editors  of  the  Tischreden,  was 
born  in  the  county  of  Mansfeld,  about  15 19.  In  1537  he 
was  sent  to  Wittenberg  by  the  help  of  Count  Albrecht 
Michael.  In  1542  he  became  tutor  to  the  young  count  of 
Mansfeld,  and  a  year  later  field  chaplain  for  the  same  pa- 
tron.    In  1545  he  again  returned  to  Wittenberg  and  spent 

1  Kroker,  235.  Plato  is  ignored  hy  the  Realencyclopaedie  and  the 
Allg.  Deut.  Bib.  Mentioned  only  once  by  Kostlin,  ii,  p.  676  n.  to  p.  487. 
He  refers  to  De  Wette,  vi,  328,  "  Luthers  Hausrechnung,"  where  we 
find  the  entry  "5  Platon  Stublin."  The  note  there  calls  him  "  Simon 
Plato  Nobilis  Pomeranus,"  hut  Kroker  shows  this  to  he  incorrect  and 
gives  the  true  name.     Einl.,  p.  14. 

2  This  resume  is  taken  from  Kroker,  Einl.,  p.  14. 


36  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [162 

a  year  with  Luther  as  his  guest  and  famulus,  accompanying 
him  in  the  latter  capacity  to  Eisleben  in  the  last  year  of 
Luther's  life.  After  his  death,  Aurifaber  again  became 
field  chaplain  in  the  army  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  in  the 
Schmalkaldic  War,  and  in  1550  he  was  appointed  court 
preacher  to  John  Friedrich  der  Mittlere.1 

He  took  an  active  part,  on  the  side  of  the  Gnesioluther- 
ans,  in  the  quarrels  which  arose  among  the  former  leader's 
students.  Employed  in  various  diplomatic  and  confidential 
missions  in  the  next  few  years,  he  got  himself  into  trouble 
with  Chancellor  Briick  on  account  of  his  firm  stand  against 
the  sectaries.  He  was  obliged  to  flee  to  Mansfeld  in  1561, 
where  his  old  patrons  maintained  him  in  leisure  for  some 
years.  It  was  during  this  time  that  his  Tischreden  was 
prepared  for  publication  (the  book  appeared  in  1566)  and 
others  of  his  works  relating  to  Luther.  In  1565  he  be- 
came pastor  at  Erfurt,  and  won  the  favor  of  the  council 
there.     He  died  ten  years  later  in  1575. 

In  his  first  stay  at  Wittenberg,  he  did  not  come  into  per- 
sonal contact  with  Luther,  and  he  tells  us  in  his  preface  that 
his  notes  were  only  taken  in  the  last  two  years  of  Luther's 
life.2  He  had  already  begun  to  collect  Lutherana  in  1540, 
and  by  1553  he  tells  us  that  he  had  2000  of  Luther's  let- 
ters. As  the  basis  of  his  edition  of  the  Tischreden  he  took 
the  fourth  redaction  of  Lauterbach,  translated  the  Latin 
words  into  German  and  added  some  material  of  his  own 
and  others.  The  arrangement  gives  no  indication  of  the 
sources  from  which  he  took  the  various  Tischreden,  so  it 
is  impossible  to  say,  except  from  internal  evidence,  which 
often  cannot  be  applied,  what  notes  are  his  own,  what  are 

1  Cf.  Realenc,  ii,  291.  Short  lives  of  Aurifaber  are  given  in  the 
Introductions  of  Forstemann-Bindseil,  Walch  and  Kroker. 

2  See  Supra,  p.  5. 


163]  THE  YOUNGER  GROUP  OF  REPORTERS  37 

Besold's,  what  Lauterbach's  and  others.  It  would  be  a 
conceivably  possible,  though  a  stupendous  and  almost  fruit- 
less task,  to  unweave  the  web  he  has  woven  and  assign 
each  of  his  sayings  to  its  proper  source,  where  these  are 
already  known,  and  distribute  the  residue,  with  some  prob- 
ability, to  him  or  others  according  to  the  time  in  which 
they  apparently  fell.1 

1  The  proofs  of  the  statements,  and  some  account  of  his  work  more 
in  detail,  will  be  given  later. 


CHAPTER  IV 
The  Sources 

In  the  Preface  we  compared  the  process  of  accumulation 
whereby  the  sayings  of  Luther  were  gathered  from  a  large 
number  of  primary  sources  into  a  few  large  collections,  to 
a  great  river  system  in  which  many  springs  send  tributaries 
into  a  few  great  streams.  This  comparison,  however,  gives 
no  idea  of  the  complexity  of  the  process,  and  we  might 
make  the  simile  more  exact  if  we  imagined  a  large  number 
of  canals  and  aqueducts  taking  water  from  each  spring  and 
conducting  into  a  number  of  tributaries  at  once,  and  cross- 
ing back  and  forth  from  one  stream  to  another  until  the 
waters  of  all  were  thoroughly  mixed.  The  simplest  way 
of  grasping  the  situation  is  by  turning  to  the  table  in  the 
Appendix,  where  the  relations  of  the  MSS.  and  editions 
are  plotted  in  such  a  manner  as  will  make  the  method  of 
transcription  and  composition  of  the  collections  clear. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  table  that  we  start  with  the 
twelve  men  who  have  left  us  records  of  the  Table  Talk. 
The  notes  of  four  of  these  are  extant  in  their  first  form,  or 
a  close  copy  of  it.  They  are:  Cordatus,  Schlaginhaufen, 
Dietrich  and  Lauterbach.  Five  others,  Mathesius,  Plato, 
Besold,  Heydenreich  and  Weller  are  known  by  transcrip- 
tions into  the  Mathesian  collection,  and  sometimes  else- 
where. Of  the  others,  Corvinus  has  left  us  but  one  note 
(taken  into  Schlaginhaufen's  book),  and  the  sayings  taken 
down  by  Stolz  and  Aurifaber  have  become  inextricably 
blended  in  the  collection  made  by  the  latter.  Besides  these 
notebooks,  we  have  one  source  of  a  different  kind,  in  the 
38  [164 


165]  THE  SOURCES  oq 

Luther  Histories  of  Mathesius.  For  convenience  we  shall 
treat  the  sources  under  the  three  heads:  1.  The  Notebooks 
extant  in  their  first  form.  2.  The  Notebooks  in  the  Mathe- 
sian  Collection.     3.  The  Luther  Histories. 

1.  The  Notebooks  extant  in  their  original  form 
As  might  be  expected,  the  diaries  in  which  the  disciples 
preserved  their  master's  sayings,  show  all  degrees  of  accur- 
acy. Their  value,  though  in  all  cases  superior  to  that  of 
the  later  collections,  is  very  unequal,  depending  chiefly 
upon  three  things:  a.  whether  the  notetaker  was  a  rapid 
and  good  writer  or  not.  b.  whether  he  dated  his  notes 
or  not.  c.  whether  he  put  down  only  what  he  heard,  or 
also  copied  from  his  friends.  We  need  not  consider,  at  this 
stage,  the  possibility  of  conscious  falsifical\on,  either  in  the 
interests  of  pious  edification,  or  for  any  otner  cause.  There 
would  be  no  such  alteration,  because,  the  notes  being  kept 
for  private  use,  there  would  be  no  motive  for  disturbing 
them.  Later,  when  they  began  to  be  published,  they  suf- 
fered much  in  this  way. 

The  best  of  the  notebooks  is  that  of  Lauterbach  for  the 
year  1538.  In  this  he  carefully  dated  every  saying,  anc 
he  copied  little  or  nothing  from  any  one  else.  The  note- 
books of  Schlaginhaufen  and  Dietrich  occupy  a  middle 
place;  dates  are  not  given  for  every  saying,  but  the  notea 
were  taken  chronologically  and  approximate  dates  are  easily 
deducible  for  all  the  sayings,  exact  dates  for  many. 
Schlaginhaufen  tells  us  he  copied  one  remark  from  Cor- 
vinus,1  and  we  suspect  him  of  taking  a  few  others 
from  Dietrich  and  Cordatus,  but  only  a  few.  Dietrich  kept 
what  he  copied  from  others  in  a  separate  book,  and  hence 
his  own  notebook  is  free  from  sophistication.  His  notes, 
unfortunately  not  yet  published,  are  said  to  show  a  great 
1  Preger,  op.  cit.,  no.  342. 


4o  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [j66 

degree  of  precision.1  Those  of  Cordatus  are  the  least  re- 
liable; he  copied  so  much  and  so  promiscuously  that  it  is 
hard  to  assign  any  original  value  to  his  notes  except  in  the 
cases  in  which  they  can  be  expressly  proved  to  be  his.  His 
notebook,  in  fact,  stands  half  way  between  a  source  like 
that  of  Schlaginhaufen,  and  a  collection,  such  as  those  we 
shall  consider  in  the  next  chapter.  Let  us  now  take  up  the 
notebooks  briefly,  in  order. 

As  has  been  said,  Cordatus  was  the  first  to  think  of  pre- 
serving the  Table  Talk  of  Luther.  His  notes  were  not 
used  by  Mathesius  or  Aurifaber  in  their  later  collections, 
perhaps  because  Cordatus  took  pains  to  keep  them  from 
getting  into  circulation,  mindful  of  Luther's  injunction  to 
his  friends  not  to  publish  anything  without  his  knowledge.2 
His  notebook  was  first  found  and  published  in  1885  by 
.  Wrampelmeyer.3 

Only  very  vague  limits  can  be  fixed  as  to  the  time 
within  which  his  notes  fell.  The  earliest  date  assignable 
from  internal  evidence  is  1524  or  1525.  The  record  was 
closed  in  1537  when  Cordatus  left  Wittenberg,  as  is  proved 
by  the  naive  subscription  of  the  man  whom  Cordatus  em- 
ployed to  copy  his  notes,  which  reads :  "  Praise  and  thanks 
to  God  that  I  am  at  the  end,  for  I  have  simply  written  my- 
self half  to  death,  and  yet  wouldn't  give  up.  May  God  re- 
store my  right  side  which  is  smitten  with  cramp  from  im- 
moderate  writing.      1537.     Glory    to    God!     Finis." 

1  Preger,  Einl.,  p.  xxiv. 

2  As  Wrampelmeyer  conjectures,  op.  cit.,  Einl..  pp.  40,  41. 

3  From  a  MS.  in  the  Library  at  Zellerfled.  The  identity  of  the 
author  is  established  both  by  the  inscription  on  the  cover  and  internal 
evidence,  such  as  the  use  of  the  first  person.  E.  g.,  "Ad  me,  cum  Vit- 
tenbergae  agerem  propter  Verbum,  quoties  dixit :  Cordate,  si  vos  non 
pecuniam  foiaibeils,  &c."  See  also  passage  quoted  above  (p.  14)  and 
Wrampelmeyer.  op.  cit..  nos.  56,  133,  133a. 


ity]  THE  SOURCES  4 1 

The  value  of  the  source  under  discussion  is  seriously 
impaired  by  the  fact  that  the  author  copied  promiscuously 
from  his  contemporaries  Dietrich  and  Schlaginhaufen,  mix- 
ing, as  he  expresses  it,  their  crumbs  with  his  in  a  mass  of 
pious  sayings,  which  may  be  pleasing  to  him  but  is  ex- 
tremely puzzling  to  the  investigator.  The  copying  was 
done  not  at  one  time,  and  in  a  separate  part  of  the  book, 
but  concurrently  with  the  process  of  notetaking  by  the 
author  himself.  Thus  we  have  now  a  note  of  Cordatus, 
then  a  few  from  Dietrich,  then  one  or  two  from  Schlagin- 
haufen and  back  to  Cordatus  again.1 

Dietrich  and  Schlaginhaufen  also  copied  something  from 
him  and  from  each  other,  but  in  an  entirely  different  way, 
and  one  which  does  not  impair  the  value  of  their  notes. 
Cordatus  copied  by  far  the  most,  and  mixed  what  he  copied 
indistinguishably  with  his  original  material.2 

Dietrich's  extremely  valuable  report,  which  is  preserved 
in  the  Nuremberg  city  library,  still  awaits  an  editor.3  It 
has  been  incorrectly  attributed  to  Mathesius  on  the  basis  of 

1  The  question  of  the  authenticity  and  chronology  of  Cordatus'  notes 
is  extremely  intricate.  Wrampelmeyer  (op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  38,  39)  gives 
a  table  of  dates,  which  shows  that  he  thinks  he  can  fix  the  time  of 
about  100  out  of  nearly  2,000  sayings.  I  consider  his  table  unsatis- 
factory. On  Cordatus'  relations  to  Dietrich,  Schlaginhaufen  and  Lau- 
terbach  (from  whom  he  copied  very  much),  see  Kroker,  Einl.,  p.  55; 
Preger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  xxiv-xxvi.  Cordatus  was  immensely  overestimated 
by  Wrampelmeyer;  he  is,  perhaps,  unduly  depreciated  by  the  later  in- 
vestigators. 

2  Schlaginhaufen  copied  little ;  Dietrich  kept  what  he  copied  separate 
from  what  he  took  himself. 

3  Seidemann  prepared  this  MS.  for  the  press,  but  died  before  print- 
ing was  actually  begun.  Kostlin  used  it  in  Seidemann's  copy.  Cf. 
Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  p.  27,  note  1.  Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  Vorwort  to 
second  edition,  and  vol.  i,  p.  774,  vol.  ii,  p.  487.  Dietrich's  notes  are 
discussed  here,  his  collection,  an  entirely  different  book,  in  the  next 
chapter. 


42  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [jffi 

an  inscription  on  the  binding,  but  internal  evidence  proves 
that  Dietrich  was  the  author.1  On  close  examination 
Preger  found  he  could  date  the  individual  notes,  at  least 
approximately.  In  their  present  form  they  are  part  of  a 
manuscript  which  contains  other  material  also.  It  has  been 
proved  that  the  part  containing  the  Table  Talk  is  simply 
bound  in  with  the  other  material,  and  not  copied  with  it 
from  a  common  source  by  the  same  scribe.  In  binding, 
the  quires  of  the  notebook  were  disarranged ;  they  originally 
followed  one  another  in  chronological  order,  which  was 
restored  by  Preger.2 

The  conversations  reported  fall,  as  is  stated  in  the  title, 
within  the  years  1 529-1 535;  the  great  majority  of  them 
demonstrably  within  the  years  1531-1533-3 

1  The  inscription  is,  "  Mathesii  avrdypatpov."  This  is  certainly  an 
error,  probably  caused  by  some  half-obliterated  words  on  the  parch- 
ment binding,  of  which  "  Mathesii "  is  one  of  the  few  still  legible. 
These  words  very  likely  contained  some  expression  of  Mathesius,  or 
some  quotation  from  him;  whatever  they  may  mean,  it  is  certain  the 
MS.  is  from  Dietrich's  notes.  For  proof,  cf.  Preger,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p. 
xviii.  Also  Seidemann,  Sdchsische  Kirch-  und  Schulblatt,  1876,  no.  43. 
Losche,  Analecta,  p.  10.     Kostlin,  op.  cit,  vol.  1,  p.  224,  note  3. 

2  They  are  contained  in  pp.  33-200  of  this  MS.  The  notation  of  the 
quires  is  E-DD.  An  older  notation,  represented  by  the  small  letters, 
b-q,  can  be  discerned,  which  lettering  is  found  only  on  the  sheets  which 
have  Tischreden.  The  order,  mixed  in  the  binding,  was  restored  by 
Preger,  quern  vide,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  xix-xxi.  There  is  an  Appendix 
of  quires,  F,  G  and  H,  which  have  no  small  letters.  They  probably 
contain  copies  from  Dietrich's  collection,  and  not,  properly,  his  own 
notes.  They  puzzled  Preger,  who  did  not  know  that  Dietrich  kept  a 
separate  book  for  copies.     Cf.  infra,  next  chapter. 

3  The  dates  are  ascertainable  partly  by  marginal  notes,  partly  by  in- 
ternal evidence,  such  as  reference  to  some  contemporary  event.  Preger 
gives  the  dates  and  evidence,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  xix-xx.  He  thinks  the 
reference  to  the  happy  estate  of  the  peasants  points  to  the  good  harvest 
of  1530.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  reference  is  rather  to  the  good  for- 
tune of  peasants  in  general  in  being  free  from  temptation.  The  other 
indications  used  by  Preger  in  dating  appear  to  me  perfectly  sound. 


169]  THE  SOURCES  43 

Schlaginhaufen's  book  of  Table  Talk  was  discovered  in 
a  MS.  in  the  Munich  Library  and  edited  by  Preger  in  1888.1 
It  appears  to  be  almost  entirely  original,  though  the  author 
tells  us  he  got  one  saying  from  Corvinus  (no.  342),  and 
another  (no.  142)  appears  to  have  been  copied  also,  per- 
haps from  Dietrich  or  Cordatus.  As  we  have  just  seen, 
Schlaginhaufen  was  much  copied  by  them. 

His  notes  fall  in  the  years  1 531-1532,  and  were  taken 
by  him  in  chronological  order.2  Schlaginhaufen  is  one  of 
the  most  accurate  and  conscientious  of  the  reporters,  giving 
not  only  the  substance  but  the  exact  form  of  Luther's  words, 
as  nearly  as  possible.  Careful  as  he  was,  however,  we  can 
see  that  at  times  he  wrote  from  memory,  and  not,  as  usu- 
ally, on  the  spot,  "  just  as  if  at  a  lecture."  For  example, 
the  long  exhortation  by  which  Luther  assisted  him  to  re- 
cover from  his  swoon  (no.  57)  could  not  have  been  taken 
at  the  time,  when  he  would  have  been  in  no  condition  to 
write.  We  have  a  curious  indication,  however,  that  it  was 
written  down  the  next  day.3  In  other  cases  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  that  details  of  time,  place  and  circumstance  were 
added  later. 

Lauterbach  was  the  author  of  a  large  number  of  books 
of  Luther's  Table  Talk.  These  books  may  be  divided 
into  two  classes,  the  notebooks  (Tagebiicher),  in  which  he 
first  entered  the  sayings  as  he  heard  them  at  table,  and 
the  collections,  in  which  he  afterwards  edited  and  arranged 

1  Ibid.,  Einl.,  p.  v,  proves  the  MS.  to  be  from  Schlaginhaufen's  notes. 

2  Ibid.,  Einl.,  pp.  xv,  xvi. 

3  This  is  that  when  Cordatus  copied  it  he  dated  it  the  day  after  it 
happened,  probably  copying  the  day  of  its  entry  rather  than  the  day  of 
its  occurrence.  In  general,  the  accuracy  of  Schlaginhaufen  is  seen  by 
the  roughness  of  his  notes.  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  (Einl.,  p.  3,)  suggests  this 
may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  Schlaginhaufen  could  not  write  as 
fast  as>  Dietrich. 


44  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [170 

his  raw  material.  He  never  did  this  in  a  way  which  per- 
manently satisfied  him,  and  so  we  have  four  redactions  of 
the  great  edition.  They  will  be  discussed  later,  in  the 
chapter  on  the  collections.  His  early  books  of  Tischreden 
may  again  be  divided  into  two  classes,  those  which  he  kept 
for  his  own  notations,  and  those  in  which  he  copied  what 
was  taken  down  by  his  friends  (we  have  called  one  of  these 
his  simple  collection  as  opposed  to  his  large  edition,  spoken 
of  above.)  Of  the  former  class  we  possess  one,  the  Tage- 
buch of  1538,  in  a  close  copy  of  the  original,  and  two  others, 
one  containing  material  compiled  during  the  years  1536  and 
1537,  and  one  for  1539,  in  the  form  in  which  they  were 
later  incorporated  into  the  Mathesian  Collection.1 

The  Tagebuch  of  1538  is  by  far  the  most  accurate  source 
we  have.  It  begins  on  January  1  and  goes  to  December 
12,  dating  each  entry  exactly,  though  not  containing  an 
entry  for  every  day.  Luther's  words  are  put  down  in  their 
exact  form,  the  mixture  of  Latin  and  German  which  he 
used  being  retained.  For  his  own  remarks  Lauterbach  gen- 
erally employs  Latin,  as  the  easier  of  the  languages  to 
write  quickly.2 

The  notes  are  full  as  well  as  accurate.  Lauterbach  spent 
no  less  conscientious  toil  on  them  than  Rorer  did  on  his 
reports  of  Luther's  sermons.  From  them  and  from  Lu- 
ther's letters  we  can  get  a  clear  and  detailed  picture  of 
just  what  the  reformer  was  doing  and  thinking  every  day 
of  the  year  1538. 

1  The  relations  of  the  sources  to  the  later  collections  is  made  clear 
in  the  Appendix. 

2  This  Tagebuch  was  edited  (by  Seidemann  in  1872.  In  his  Preface 
(pp.  iii  and  xiii)  the  editor  proves  the  accuracy  of  the  notes.  A  later 
critic  discovers  some  omissions,  cf.  W.  Meyer:  "Ueber  Lauterbachs  und 
Aurifabers  Sammlungen  der  Tischreden  Luthers "  in  Abhandlungen 
der  koniglichen  Gescllschaften  der  Wissenschaftcn  zu  Gottingen,  Phil. 
Hist.  Klasse,  Neue  Folge,  1897,  vol.  i.  no.  2.  p.  37. 


171  ]  THE  SOURCES  45 

The  rapidity  of  writing  caused  some  errors,  and  is  con- 
stantly betrayed  in  the  rough  style  of  the  notes.1  Thous- 
ands of  changes  are  made  in  the  later  collections  in  the  ma- 
terial taken  from  this  with  the  desire  to  improve  the  liter- 
ary form  and  sometimes  the  sense  also.  For  example,  it  is 
recounted  of  a  locksmith's  apprentice,  how  he  saw  an  evil 
spirit  which  chased  him  for  several  hours  one  evening 
through  the  streets  of  Wittenberg  and  asked  him  whether 
he  believed  the  catechism  and  why  he  had  taken  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  both  kinds,  and  forbade  him  to  return  to  his 
master's  house,  which  he  therefore  shunned  for  some  days. 
Lauterbach  and  others  brought  him  to  Luther,  who  said, 
"  We  must  not  believe  every  one,  because  many  are  im- 
posters."  In  the  later  collection  the  sense  is  completely 
altered;  it  is  not  the  devil,  but  Luther  who  questions  the 
young  man  on  his  faith.2 

Lauterbach's  notes  for  1536-7  were  absorbed  into  Wel- 
ler's  collection  and  with  it  taken  into  the  Mathesian  collec- 
tion.3 His  notes  of  1539  have  survived  in  a  copy  made  by 
the  Rev.  Paul  Richter  in  1 553-1 554.  From  this  a  small 
selection  was  made  and  incorporated  into  the  Mathesian 
collection.4 

1  E.  g.,  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  44.  "3  Martii  Luther  habebat  convivium 
sui  regni.  I'bi  coenabantur,  recitabantur  psalmi  evangelia  catechismus 
orationes  prout  singulis  erat  demandatum ;  sed  familia  in  pronunciando 
respirebat."  Here  respirebat  is  senseless  and  coenabantur  is  strange.  In 
the  MSS.  Wer.  and  Mun.  (see  Appendix),  and  in  Bindseil  these  words 
are  corrected  to  hacsitabat  and  canabantur  respectively.  Meyer,  loc.  cit., 
p.  38.     Meyer  is  criticising  Seidemann's  editing. 

2  As  given  in  the  Tagebuch  it  is  undoubtedly  correct,  though  Luther's 
response  is  inconsistent  with  his  usually  credulous  attitude.  Other  ex- 
amples given  in  Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  37.  The  anecdote  is  given  in  Seide- 
mann, op.  cit.,  p.  6,  for  Jan.  10. 

3  Sees.  4  and  5  of  Kroker's  Tischreden  in  der  Mathesischen  Samm- 
lung.     See  infra. 

4  Sec.  6  of  Kroker.  For  Richter,  see  Appendix  on  MSS.  His  MS. 
is  called  Colloquia  Scrotina. 


46  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  ^y2 

2.  Notebooks  which  have  survived  in  the  Mathesian 
Collection 

Besides  the  notebooks  of  the  four  men  discussed  in  the 
first  part  of  this  chapter  we  have  notes  of  Mathesius,  Hey- 
denreich,  Besold  and  Weller,  which  were  taken  in  part  into 
the  Mathesian  collection.  Mathesius  made  his  collection 
on  a  different  plan  from  those  of  Lauterbach  and  Auri- 
faber,  who  took  the  notes  out  of  their  original  order  and  re- 
arranged them  topically.  Mathesius  copied  his  sources  one 
after  the  other,  so  that  we  can  distinguish  the  contributions 
of  each,  date  the  notes  and  estimate  their  relative  value. 
But  though  the  Mathesian  collection  is  divided  into  sec- 
tions corresponding  with  the  sources  from  which  the  editor 
copied,  he  does  not  tell  us  who  is  the  author  of  each  par- 
ticular one,  and  the  nice  work  of  discrimination  has  to  be- 
based  upon  internal  evidence.  Kroker,  who  has  edited  Mathe- 
sius, has  done  the  work  admirably,  and  our  account  will  follow 
him.  Leaving  the  features  which  are  common  to  the  whole 
collection  to  be  dealt  with  later,  we  shall  now  proceed  to 
speak  briefly  of  the  individual  notebooks  which  compose  it. 

The  most  important  of  these  is  Mathesius'  own  Tage- 
buch,  printed  by  the  editor  as  the  first  section  of  the  collec- 
tion.1 The  sayings  fall  in  the  months  of  May  to  Novem- 
ber (except  July,  when  Luther  was  away)  of  the  year  1540. 
The  order  is  that  in  which  Mathesius  took  them  down 
from  day  to  day.  The  reporter  did  not  take  the  trouble 
to  date  every  entry  he  made,  as  did  Lauterbach,  but  from 
the  dates  given  and  those  deducible  we  can  assign  each 
saying  to  very  nearly  the  proper  day.  Entries  are  not 
made  every  day,  but  there  are  some  omissions,  the  longest 
of  which  are  for  the  month  of  July,  when  Luther  went  to 

1  Evidence  for  the  dates  of  the  sayings  given,  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl., 
p.  27. 


173]  THE  sources  47 

Weimar  and  Eisenach,  and  at  the  end  of  August,  when 
either  Mathesius  may  have  left  for  a  short  time — Luther's 
beer  had  given  out — /  or  else  he  remitted  his  activity  in 
taking  notes  because  of  Kathe's  sharp  reflection  on  the  prac- 
tice,  recorded  by  Mathesius 2  in  the  following  anecdote : 

When  somebody  asked  the  Doctor  a  question  his  wife  said 
jestingly,  "  Doctor,  don't  teach  them  free !  For  they  have  al- 
ready learned  much  so,  Lauterbach  the  most  and  the  best." 
The  Doctor  answered,  "  I  have  taught  and  preached  freely  for 
thirty  years ;  why  should  I  begin  to  charge  now  ?" 

The  other  notes  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  this  col- 
lection are  of  less  importance.  Those  of  Plato  will  be 
treated  more  fully  in  the  next  chapter,  as  they  resemble 
a  collection  more  than  they  do  a  notebook.  A  large  and 
valuable  selection  from  Heydenreich's  notes  of  the  years 
1542  and  1543  is  given  in  the  second  section  of  the 
Mathesian  collection  as  printed  by  Kroker.  Only  excerpts 
were  taken  by  Mathesius,  as  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  all 
the  jokes,  which  must  have  been  present,  as  they  are  so  fre- 
quent in  Mathesius'  own  notes,  are  omitted  as  unimportant.3 

Besold's  notes  (a  few  poor  ones  only  have  survived) 
from  the  year  1544  are  taken  into  the  third  section  of 
Kroker's  4  edition  of  Mathesius.  Weller's  notes  also  form 
a  section  of  this  work.  He  kept  two  books,  one  of  which 
we  may  call  a  notebook,  and  one  a  collection,  though  there 

1  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  417,  August  24. 

2  Ibid.,  no.  332.     See  also  no.  334,  note. 

3  There  are  158  sayings  of  Heydenreich  dated  by  the  superscription 
1542.  Kroker  {op.  cit.,  EinL,  p.  40)  proves  some  of  them  to  have 
been  from  1543.  He  proves  in  the  same  place  that  the  section  comes 
from  Heydenreich.  The  sequence  of  the  sayings  was  disturbed,  just  as 
in  the  cases  of  Dietrich  and  Schlaginhaufen,  in  the  binding. 

4  Sec.  3  of  Kroker's  Mathesius,  no.  260-271,  Einl.,  p.  44. 


48  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I74 

is  not  much  difference  between  them.  He  copied  much 
from  Lauterbach  in  both,  and  we  have  to  distinguish  the 
source  of  each  by  internal  evidence.1 

3.   The  Luther  Histories  of  Mathesius 

Besides  the  sayings  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  the 
notebooks  we  have  just  been  discussing, quite  a  number  have 
survived  in  a  different  sort  of  a  work  where  they  are  intro- 
duced casually,  and  do  not  constitute  the  main  interest. 
This  work  is  a  series  of  "  Sermons,"  or  lectures,  on  Luther's 
life,  published  by  Mathesius  thirty  years  after  he  had 
ceased  to  take  notes  at  Luther's  table.  Even  after  this 
stretch  of  time,  the  author  was  able  to  remember  and  re- 
count some  sayings  of  Luther  which  are  found  nowhere 
else,  and  for  which,  therefore,  these  lectures  must  be  con- 
sidered the  source.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  much  less  weight 
can  be  given  to  this  than  to  the  other  sources  which  were 
written  on  the  spot.  Let  us  see  how  far  Mathesius  was 
dependent  on  his  memory,  and  how  far  on  his  own,  or 
others',  previous  notes.2 

If  we  compare  Mathesius'  collection  with  his  sermons 
we  see  that  a  great  deal  of  material  is  common  to  both. 
Hardly  a  page  of  the  latter  is  without  some  parallel  in  the 
former,  parallels  to  his  own  notes  of  1540  being  especially 

1  Weller's  notebook,  sec.  4,  Kroker ;  his  collection,  sec.  8.  See  Kroker, 
op.  cit.,  p.  45. 

2  The  relation  of  the  Luther  Histories  and  Mathesius'  notes  was 
touched  upon  by  Losche  (Analecta,  Einl.,  p.  32),  but  he  thought  it  not 
worth  considering,  as  he  found  only  eight  parallels.  Had  he  taken 
short  sentences  and  clauses,  which  are  evidently  reminiscences  of  the 
notes,  as  well  as  the  elaborate  parallels,  he  might  have  made  a  much 
larger  list.  Kroker  did  this,  and  found  over  one  hundred  parallels  to 
the  collection,  of  which  80  were  to  Mathesius'  own  notes ;  besides 
this  he  found  parallels  to  others — 'Dietrich,  Lauterbach  and  Schlagin- 
haufen.     For  the  Luther  Histories,  see  Appendix. 


175]  rHE  sources  49 

frequent.1  Are  these  parallels  due  to  the  fact  that  he  re- 
members the  sayings  he  inserts  independently,  or  to  the  fact 
that  he  read  them  from  his  collection?  We  notice  that  he 
seldom  quotes  with  verbal  exactness,  which  proves,  at  least, 
that  he  did  not  have  the  collection  before  him  as  he  talked. 
A  further  analysis  shows  three  kinds  of  agreement,  varying 
by  degree  of  closeness,  (a)  Agreement  of  form  and  ex- 
pression, which  is  very  rare.  When  we  find  it,  it  is  in  short, 
characteristic  expressions.  Mathesius  has  the  same  pen- 
chant for  enlarging  on  what  Luther  said,  that  we  discover 
in  Lauterbach  and  Aurifaber.  (b)  Agreement  in  content, 
with  difference  in  expression.  This  is  the  rule.  Luther's 
sayings  are  ornamented  and  the  circumstances  of  their  ut- 
terance given.  Sometimes  there  is  nothing  to  distinguish 
Luther's  words  from  Mathesius'  own  remarks.2  (c) 
Sometimes  the  sense  as  well  as  the  form  is  changed.3 
It  is  but  natural  that  much  of  the  material  in  the  ser- 

1  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  67.  As  sources,  Mathesius  also  used  the 
Wittenberg  edition  of  Luther's  writings  and  Aurifaber's  of  his  letters. 
Aurifaber's  Tischreden  had  not  yet  appeared. 

2  Kroker  gives  examples,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  69.  The  most  important 
one  is  the  story  of  the  Elbe  turning  red,  which  is  recounted  in  three 
separate  documents  by  Mathesius,  vis.:  1.  A  letter  to  Spalatin.  2. 
Tischreden,  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  120.  3.  In  the  Luther  Histories.  On 
their  face  these  three  accounts  contradict  each  other;  in  one  source 
Luther  knows  nothing  certain  of  the  facts,  in  another  he  has  seen  it; 
in  one  he  thinks  it  a  natural  phenomenon,  in  another  miraculous. 
Kroker  tries  to  reconcile  them  all,  but  not  successfully.  The  case  really 
shows  how  unreliable  is  an  account  given  from  memory  many  years 
after. 

3  Kroker  gives  examples,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  71.  One  of  these  is  Kroker, 
ibid.,  no.  135.  "Ego  tres  malos  canes  habeo,  ingratitudinem,  superbiam, 
invidiam,"  etc.,  where  it  seems  that  Luther  is  referring  to  his  own 
temptations.  In  Luther  Histories,  lxii,  136b,  the  same  words  are  used, 
but  applied  to  the  clergy  under  him.  Kroker  thinks  the  later  account 
the  true  one,  as  the  more  probable;  it  seems  to  me  that  we  ought  to 
follow  the  earlier  even  at  the  cost  of  making  Luther  accuse  himself  of 
being  tempted. 


50  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I76 

mons  and  in  the  notebook  should  be  the  same.  Mathesius 
would  remember  what  he  had  heard  and  written  down  pre- 
viously. But  by  the  variation  in  the  two  reports  we  see 
that  one  was  not  taken  from  the  other.  Besides  there  is 
much  material  in  the  sermons  which  comes  from  the  years 
in  which  Mathesius  no  longer  took  notes.  For  such  ma- 
terial the  sermons  are  a  source.  Not  being  taken  down  at 
the  time,  however,  and  varying  considerably  from  the  ma- 
terial which  was  taken  down  at  the  time,  they  have  less 
authenticity  and  authority  than  the  notebooks. 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Collections 

Besides  taking  notes  of  their  own,  many  of  the  report- 
ers were  diligent  collectors  of  notes  taken  by  others. 
Sometimes  they  kept  these  separate  from  their  own,  some- 
times they  put  what  they  copied  along  with  their  own  ori- 
ginal material.  Sometimes  the  collections  were  kept  in 
the  form  in  which  they  were  found  in  the  original,  some- 
times they  were  "  edited,"  i.  e.  smoothed  off  and  rearranged 
in  some  definite  order,  usually  topical.  On  the  basis  of  the 
way  in  which  they  were  collected  we  can,  for  the  sake  of 
convenience,  divide  the  collections  into  three  classes. 

a.  Mixed,  i.  e.  those  in  which  the  reporter  put  down 
notes  from  other  sources  along  with  his  own  original  ones 
promiscuously  and  with  no  attempt  at  order.  It  is  hard 
to  distinguish  these  collections  from  the  notebooks,  and 
the  distinction  must  be  somewhat  arbitrary,  based  on  the 
relative  importance  and  quantity  of  the  original  and  the 
copied  notes.  Cordatus,  for  example,  had  such  a  book,  but 
as  his  own  notes  are  in  fairly  large  quantity  and  greater  in 
importance  than  the  copied  ones,  we  found  it  convenient 
to  consider  his  book  as  a  notebook.  Plato  and  Weller  left 
books  much  like  his,  but  in  them  the  amount  of  original  ma- 
terial is  relatively  so  much  smaller  that  we  may  consider 
them  rather  as  collections  than  as  notebooks. 

b.  Simple,  i.  e.  those  in  which  the  author  kept  the  notes 
177]  51 


52  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [j^g 

he  copied  distinct  from  his  own.  Such  were  made  by 
Dietrich,  Lauterbach  and  Mathesius. 

c.  Edited,  i.  e.  those  in  which  the  material  was  much 
changed,  the  notes  rearranged  and  polished.  Such  was  the 
collection  known  as  Farrago  literanim  and  such  were  the 
great  collections  of  Lauterbach  (not  to  be  confounded  with 
his  simple  one)  and  of  Aurifaber. 

We  shall  speak  of  each  of  the  collections  in  turn. 

That  of  Plato  is  uninteresting  and  of  little  value  except 
as  illustrating  the  vicissitudes  through  which  the  sayings 
of  Luther  might  go  before  they  reach  us.  He  made  the 
compilation  chiefly  by  copying  freely  from  Mathesius'  note- 
book of  1540.1  When  Mathesius  was  making  a  collection 
of  his  own,  he  got  hold  of  Plato's,  most  of  which  was  taken 
from  his  own  notes,  and  reincorporated  it  into  his  own  col- 
lection, thereby  duplicating  some  135  sayings  which  he  al- 
ready had  in  their  original  form.  Plato  also  copied  from 
Dietrich,  Lauterbach,  and  perhaps  Stolz  and  Aurifaber,  and 
made  some  slight  attempt  to  put  the  sayings  in  topical  order. 
The  work  has  survived  in  two  other  copies.  Melanchthon 
chanced  to  get  a  copy,  and  when  he  was  lecturing  to  a 
class  on  Luther  some  years  after  his  death,  he  took  large 
portions  of  Plato  as  a  text.  These  lectures  were  taken 
down  by  a  student  named  Vendenhaimer,  and  have  found 
their  way  into  the  Corpus  Reformatorum  along  with 
Melanchthon's  works.2 

Weller's  record  of  the  table  talk  is  also  more  famous  for 

1  The  three  copies  in  which  Plato's  collection  has  survived  are  those 
known  as  Memorabilia,  Melanchthon,  and  Mathesius,  sec.  7.  Kroker 
proved  Plato  to  be  the  author,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  48-54-  How  much  he 
copied  from  Mathesius  is  seen  by  the  fact  that  of  149  sayings  in  the 
Mathesian  Collection,  135  had  been  taken  from  Mathesius'  notes  of 
1540. 

2  See  Appendix,  p.  115,  for  Corpus  Reformatorum. 


179]  THE  COLLECTIONS  53 

its  complicated  history  and  obscure  method  of  compilation 
than  for  any  value  it  has  as  an  original  text.  We  have 
already  discussed  his  note  book,  which  approaches  a 
collection  in  form,  as  it  consists  largely  of  copies  from 
Lauterbach.  In  like  manner  his  collection  has  a  number 
of  original  notes.  Both  have  survived  only  in  the  copy 
by  Mathesius,  the  former  in  Section  4  and  the  latter  in 
Section  8  (as  printed  by  Kroker). 

Weller's  larger  work  was  not  incorporated  in  the  Mathe- 
sian  collection  by  Mathesius  himself,  but  by  the  man  who 
copied  it,  Kruginger.  As  printed  by  Kroker,  Weller's 
copied  notes  form  the  eighth  section  of  the  compilation 
called  by  the  name  of  Mathesius;  in  the  MS.  which  he 
edited  it  is  the  first.  This  is  because  Weller  had  been  first 
copied  by  Kruginger,  who  made  his  work  the  first  part  of  a 
new  collection  of  his  own  and  copied  that  of  Mathesius  as 
the  second  part.  As  Kruginger  was  a  mere  copyist,  we  al- 
ways speak  of  the  total  result  as  the  Mathesian  collection, 
although  it  must  be  remembered  that  properly  only  sections 
1-7  as  printed  or  2-8  as  in  the  MS.,  were  compiled  by 
Mathesius  himself.1 

To  return  to  Weller.  We  can  discover  three  sections  in 
his  aggregation  of  notes,  the  first  of  which  consists  chiefly 
of  copies  from  Lauterbach  (and  perhaps  Cordatus),2  the 
second,  mostly  of  selections  from  Lauterbach's  Tagebuch  of 
1536-7,3  and  the  third,  of  excerpts  from  Dietrich  and  Lau- 

1  The  complicated  proof  that  Weller  was  the  original  of  this  collec- 
tion, and  that  Kruginger  copied  it  as  a  whole  and  did  not  compile  it 
himself  from  the  originals,  is  given  iby  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  54,  55. 

2  Parallels  are  found  both  in  Cordatus  and  Lauterbach's  great  col- 
lection. The  parallels  in  Cordatus  are  best  explained  by  saying  that 
Cordatus  copied  from  Lauterbach's  notes,  which  he  later  took  into  his 
great  Collection.     Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  57. 

3  Ibid.,  Einl.,  p.  58.  There  are  no  notes  for  February,  1537,  when 
Luther  was  at  Schmalkalden. 


54  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [i%0 

terbach,    with    a    few    original    notes    of    Weller's    own.1 
The  date  of  compilation  was  probably  1537  or  1538. 

The  simplest  of  the  "  simple "  collection  is  that  of 
Dietrich,  of  which  nothing  need  to  said  but  that  it  contains 
copies  from  Cordatus,  Schlaginhaufen  and  Lauterbach 
made  in  the  same  years  in  which  Dietrich  was  taking  notes 
himself,  viz.  1 529-1 535,  and  that  it  has  survived  only  in 
imperfect  copies  of  portions  made  by  three  persons,  one  of 
whom  was  Mathesius,  who  made  it  part  of  the  6th  section 
of  his  work.2 

Lauterbach's  simple  collection  (we  must  again  warn  the 
reader  not  to  confuse  it  with  his  notebooks  on  the  one  hand 
or  his  great  edition  on  the  other)  is  extant  in  three  MSS.  as 
an  appendix  to  his  Tagebuch  of  1538.  It  has  never  been 
edited,  and  indeed  is  not  worth  editing.  All  or  most  of  it 
was  taken  into  his  great  edition  later,  when  the  contents 
were  polished  and  rearranged.  It  seems  to  be  quite  com- 
plete, containing  copies  from  almost  all  the  earlier  group 
of  reporters  and  perhaps  some  of  the  later.  It  was  prob- 
ably made  in  1538  or  1539  soon  after  Lauterbach  left  Wit- 
tenberg.* 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  60-65.  A  few  parallels  to  the  third  division  are  found 
in  Weller's  works.  They  are  of  the  kind  known  as  Trostschriften; 
one  on  a  woman  in  spasms,  one  on  the  devil  and  the  jurists — person- 
ages who  had  a  peculiarly  close  relationship  in  Luther's  mind. 

2  Ibid.,  Einl.,  p.  46.  The  other  MSS.  which  contain  excerpts  from  it 
are  those  we  have  called  Bavarus  and  Obenander.  See  Appendix.  Some 
copies  are  made  from  an  otherwise  unknown  and  unidentifiable  source. 

•The  MSS.  which  contain  this  collection  are  Khumer,  pp.  257-426, 
Wer.,  pp.  35-212-b,  and  Mun  elm  939,  pp.  7b-n6b.  The  whole  subject  is 
discussed  by  Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  40.  Seidemann,  who  edited  the  Tage- 
buch of  1538  read  these  notes,  which  he  says  also  come  from  Lauter- 
bach's notes  (Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  ix,  x).  He  seems  to  have 
thought,  however,  that  they  were  in  some  way  collected  by  the  author 


!8i]  THE  COLLECTIONS  55 

The  compilation  of  Mathesius,  in  the  form  of  an  appen- 
dix to  his  own  notes  of  1540,  is  the  largest  we  have,  being, 
in  fact,  a  collection  of  collections.  As  it  now  stands  (in 
the  printed  edition  of  Kroker  from  Kriiginger's  copy)  it 
consists  of  eight  sections,  each  section  corresponding  to 
the  notes  copied  from  one  of  the  author's  sources.  Each 
source  was  taken  and  copied  straight  through,  with  no  at- 
tempt to  rearrange  the  notes.     These  sections  are: 

1.  Mathesius'  own  notes  of  1540. 

2.  Heydenreich's  notes  of  1542- 1543. 

3.  Besold's  notes  of  1544. 

4.  Weller's  notebook  (with  copies  from  Lauterbach,  see 
supra). 

5.  Lauterbach's  notebook  of  1539. 

6.  Copies  from  the  notebook  and  collection  of  Dietrich. 

7.  Plato's  collection. 

8.  Weller's  collection. 

The  accumulation  of  these  sources  was  gradual.  Mathe- 
sius started  with  his  own  notes  of  1540  and  after  Luther's 
death  added  to  them  notes  from  others  one  by  one  as  he 
came  across  them,  those  of  Heydenreich  and  Besold  in 
1547,  the  next  two  sections  in  1548  and  the  seventh  some 
time  later.  The  eighth  section  was  not  in  Mathesius'  own 
collection  but  was  added  by  the  copyist,  Kriiginger.1 

of  the  MS.,  Khumer,  vis.,  Khumer,  a  friend  of  Lauterbach's.  This 
could  not  have  been  so,  however,  as  Khumer's  MS.  dates  from  1554, 
and  the  collection  had  already  been  copied  1550  in  Mun.  elm.  939.  In 
general,  the  notes  agree  in  form  closely  with  the  later  great  collection 
of  which  they  formed  a  chief  source. 

1  This  section  was  one  which  had  been  copied  by  Kriiginger  from 
Weller  before  he  got  Mathesius'  collection,  and  was  made  by  him  the 
first  section  of  the  collection  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Leipzig  MS. 
Kroker,  who  edited  the  MS.  in  1903,  restored  the  order  of  Mathesius 
and  printed  (or  rather  summarized)  Kriiginger's  own  collection  in  the 
8th  section.     Cf.  supra,  p.  37,  on  Weller's  collection. 


56  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [^ 

A  greater  contrast  in  the  treatment  of  the  same  material 
than  that  between  the  original  notes  and  early  copies  of  the 
Table  Talk,  and  the  later  polished,  or  "  edited  "  collec- 
tions can  hardly  be  imagined.  The  notes  were  taken 
roughly  and  hastily  at  first,  in  transcription  they  were 
somewhat  altered,  abbreviations  were  expanded,  omissions 
filled  in,  smooth  forms  substituted  for  rough,  one  language 
for  the  mixture  of  two  and  grammatical  for  ungrammatical 
constructions.  These  changes  were  begun  by  the  reporters 
in  copying  their  own  notes,  but  they  were  extremely  slight 
compared  to  the  changes  made  by  the  later  editors. 

In  the  original  notes  the  chronological  order  is  the  one 
usually  followed,  and  there  is  no  attempt  to  replace  it  by 
the  topical.  In  the  edited  collections  the  material  is  cut 
up  and  redistributed,  explanations  are  added,  much  is 
omitted  and  much  entirely  recast.  The  idea  was  no  longer 
to  give  a  faithful  report  of  Luther's  exact  words,  it  was  to 
make  an  edifying  book,  something  which  would  serve 
partly  as  a  repertory  for  anecdotes  to  be  used  in  sermons, 
partly  as  a  pious  memorial  of  Luther.  All  obscurities  were 
cleared  up,  whatever  was  coarse  was  softened  down,  and 
whatever  would  give  ground  to  the  enemies  of  the  faith 
was  attenuated.  Sometimes  changes  were  made  in  the  in- 
terest of  picquancy,  sometimes  the  original  was  misunder- 
stood.1 Dates  and  circumstances  were  added  from  memory, 
often  incorrectly. 

1  An  interesting  example  of  this  is  found  in  the  story  related  in  its 
original  form  by  Cordatus  (Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  945)  and  taken 
(either  from  him  or  some  other  source)  into  a  later  collection  (Forste- 
mann-Bindseil,  Tischreden,  i,  p.  293).  In  Cordatus  it  is:  "  Et  Maxi- 
milianus  valde  suspiciosus  fuit  in  re  militari.  Gentes  in  periculis  mac- 
taverunt  etiam  dilectissima,"  etc.  Luther  was  thinking  of  such  cases 
as  Iphigenia,  but  the  application  of  his  words  directly  to  Maximilian 
lead  to  the  following  amusing  translation:  "Kaiser  Maximilian  soil  in 
Kriegshandeln  sehr  aberglaubish  gewesen  sein;  in  Fahrlichkeiten  that 
er  Gott  Gelubde  und  schlachtete  was  ihm  am  ersten  begegnet,  wie  man 
von  ihm  saget." 


183]  THE  COLLECTIONS  57 

One  MS.  preserves  an  early  attempt  to  compile  such  a 
book  by  an  unknown  author,  which,  though  neither  large 
nor  good,  nor  historically  important,  is  interesting  as 
showing  the  first  case  of  the  topical  redaction  which  added 
so  greatly  to  the  value  of  the  book  for  purposes  of  edifica- 
tion. The  MS.  was  written  in  1551  by  "  M.  B."  and  is 
called  Farrago  liter  arum  ad  amicos  et  colloquiorum  in 
mensa  R.  P.  Domini  Martini  Lutheri.1 

It  was  the  most  assiduous  of  the  reporters  who  became 
the  most  diligent  of  the  redactors  and  collectors.  Lauter- 
bach  had  a  vast  quantity  of  original  notes  as  well  as  a  col- 
lection containing  copies  from  other  reporters.  These  he 
kept  by  him  until  1558  (twenty  years  after  the  bulk  of 
them  had  been  taken)  and  then  he  decided  to  put  them  all 
into  a  single  volume,  neatly  polished  and  topically  ar- 
ranged. This  great  work  took  him  two  years,  and  when 
it  was  done  he  was  not  satisfied  with  it  but  worked  it  over 
three  times  within  the  course  of  the  next  two  years  i.  e. 
1 560-1 562.  We  shall  say  just  a  word  about  each  of  the 
redactions  to  show  his  method  of  procedure  and  its  effect 
upon  the  Table  Talk.2 

The  first  edition  of  the  great  collection  was  made,  as 
has  been  said,  in  the  years  1 558-1 560. 8  The  arrangement 
is  somewhat  peculiar.  After  cutting  up  Luther's  sayings 
in  tiny  sections  with  separate  titles,  he  combined  them  into 
large  groups  under  general  captions.  He  began  by  ar- 
ranging these  groups  according  to  his  idea  of  the  relative 

1  See  Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  774;  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  p.  6,  note  1. 

2  My  account  is  taken  entirely  from  W.  Meyer :  "  Ueber  Lauterbachs 
und  Aurifabers  Sammlungen  der  Luthers  Tischreden,"  in  Abhand- 
lungen  d.  k.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  z.  Gottingen,  Phil.  Hist. 
Kl.,  Neue  Folge,  Bd.  i,  no.  2,  1897.     For  these  redactions,  see  pp.  9-18. 

3  MS.  in  Halle  edited  by  Bindseil  in  three  vols.,  1860-63,  see  Ap- 
pendix. 


58  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [^ 

importance  of  their  subjects  from  a  theological  standpoint. 
Thus  the  first  chapter  treated  God,  the  second  the  Bible 
and  so  on.  After  a  while  all  the  important  points  of  doc- 
trine had  been  disposed  of  and  he  came  to  a  lot  of  chapters 
treating  of  matters  indifferent.  These  he  arranged  in  al- 
phabetic order,  making  them  the  second  and  third  volume 
of  his  collection.1 

Lauterbach's  second  edition  of  his  collection  was  made 
shortly  after  the  first  was  completed.2  Its  peculiarity  con- 
sists in  the  rearrangement  of  the  small  sections  in  the  larger 
chapters.3  Many  passages  are  omitted,  some  material  is 
added  though  not  much.  The  chief  addition  is  that  of 
introductions  to  many  sections  by  Lauterbach  himself,  giv- 
ing circumstances  and  explanations.  These  he  may  have 
taken  from  notes,  but  more  probably  added  from  memory. 

The  third  redaction  we  do  not  know  in  a  good  copy,  but 
only  in  Rebenstock's  edition  in  which  all  the  German  is 
turned  into  Latin.  This  was  completed  about  1561.4  Its 
characteristic  is  that  the  chapters  or  chief  divisions  are 
rearranged.  These  changes  were  in  part  intentional,  in 
part  due  to  carelessness,  a  section  omitted  by  oversight  in 
one  place  being  inserted  at  another.     A  good  example  of 

1  This  order  was  misunderstood  and  confused  by  the  copyist.  It  has 
been  restored  by  Meyer. 

2  Preserved  in  two  copies  in  MSS.  at  Dresden  and  Gotha,  see  Ap- 
pendix. 

3  E.  g.,  under  chapter  "  Civitas  "  all  the  sayings  about  each  particular 
state  are  brought  together. 

4  Rebenstock  says  he  took  it  ( 1571)  from  a  MS.  "ante  annos  10  ad 
aeditionem  parata."  Bindseil,  vol.  i,  Einl.,  pp.  lxxxi-c.  Pie  was  much 
puzzled  by  the  relation  of  Rebenstock  to  this  MS.  The  date  of  the 
second  redaction  should  have  been  1561.  The  Gotha  MS.  has  1562,  but 
that  may  only  refer  to  the  time  when  it  was  copied  from  Lauterbach's 
original.  Or  both  the  third  and  second  redactions  may  have  been  1562; 
Rebenstock's  10  years  being  simply  approximate. 


!85]  the  COLLECTIONS  59 

the  first  kind  of  change  is  the  grouping  the  chapters  Anti- 
nomi,  Anabaptistae,  Antichrist,  Papae,  Papistate  and 
Papatus  all  together  under  the  head  of  Luther's  enemies, 
the  intention  being,  of  course,  to  get  a  more  logical  order. 
An  example  of  the  other  kind  of  change  is  found  in  the 
insertion  of  the  chapter  " Absolution — which  had  been  acci- 
dentally omitted  before, — between  the  sections  on  "Luther" 
and  "  Melanchthon."  Such  an  oversight  is  made  possible 
by  the  fact  that  Lauterbach  distributed  his  notes  into  quires, 
and  his  arrangement  consisted  in  making  a  new  arrange- 
ment of  these;  when  a  quire  was  mislaid  it  was  left  out  of 
its  proper  place,  and  inserted  later,  when  found. 

Another  striking  characteristic  of  the  third  redaction  (and 
also  of  the  fourth,  which  may  have  been  copied  from  it) 
is  the  recurrence  of  numerous  and  important  omissions. 
In  some  cases  these  were  undoubtedly  intentional,  as  they 
are  of  irrelevant  passages,1  in  other  cases  no  such  reason 
can  be  assigned,  and  the  omissions  must  have  been  due  to 
carelessness  or  accident.  The  arrangement  of  the  last  half 
of  Part  I  and  the  whole  of  Part  II  is  the  old  alphabetic  one. 

The  fourth  redaction  is  known  to  us  in  the  Wolfen- 
biittel  MS.  of  1562.  As  it  was  the  one  taken  by  Aurifaber 
as  the  basis  of  his  printed  edition,  we  will  discuss  it  later 
when  we  come  to  him  and  his  relation  to  Lauterbach.2 

The  differences  between  these  four  editions  are  far  too 
great  to  be  accounted  for  by  any  vagary  of  a  copyist  or 
scribe.  They  imply  conscious  redaction.  We  are  sure 
that  Lauterbach  was  the  redactor  of  the  first  three  editions, 
and  probably  of  the  fourth,  though  the  proof  for  it  is  not 
clear  as  that  may  have  been  an  early  attempt  of  Aurifaber.3 

1  Meyer,  pp.  12,  13.  On  pp.  14-17  he  gives  a  long  list  of  text  changes 
in  the  various  redactions.  2  Infra,  p.  62. 

8  Binds eil  (Colloq.,  vol.  i,  Einl.,  p.  xxxxix)  proved  that  Lauterbach 


60  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [t86 

Lauterbach's  method  of  working  is  interesting.  We  see 
by  comparison  of  the  original  sources  with  his  version  of 
them  in  his  great  collection  that  he  changed  not  a  little. 
In  his  first  notes  we  see  how  scrupulously  careful  he  was 
to  get  the  exact  form  of  Luther's  words.  He  changed  this 
a  good  deal  in  his  first  edition  of  the  collection,  and  even 
after  that,  with  the  intention  of  improvement.  He  doubt- 
less felt  that  the  way  in  which  the  sayings  had  been  reported 
was  not  absolutely  definitive.  His  changes  were  not  con- 
fined to  supposed  textual  emendations,  but  were  often  made 
with  the  manifest  purpose  of  edification,  and  especially  of 
eliminating  whatever  might  damage  the  character  of  his 
hero.1 

He  took  no  care,  however,  to  avoid  repetitions,  and 
many  an  old  "  grouse  in  the  gun-room  "  story  of  Luther's 
meets  us  in  several  places.  Sometimes  he  combined  en- 
tirely different  stories  to  get  a  good  narration.  Sometimes 
he  deliberately  falsified  the  text  in  the  interests  of  piety. 
Even  though  his  motive  was  good  his  lack  of  literary  tact 
and  discrimination  made  the  text  worse  when  he  changed  it. 
He  was  encouraged  to  change  because,  having  taken  notes 
himself,  he  was  aware  that  it  was  hard  to  get  the  exact 
form  of  Luther's  expressions,  and  therefore  corrected  them 
in  accord  with  principles  which  he  supposed  would  bring 
out  the  true  sense. 

The  most  famous  of  all  the  collections,  and,  until  within 

was  the  collector  of  the  first  redaction.  Meyer  (pp.  19,  20)  goes  over 
his  reasons  and  proves  the  2d  and  3d  redactions  to  be  by  Lauterbach. 
This  certainty  is  worth  something,  as  it  gives  a  little  more  authority  to 
changes  than  if  they  had  been  by  some  one  else. 

1  Meyer,  pp.  20-25.  Besides  Tischreden,  Lauterbach  mixed  in  some 
extraneous  material,  such  as  e.  g.,  letters  and  allegories  related  by 
Melanchthon.  Meyer  found  parallels  to  some  of  them  in  old  MS.  col- 
lections of  allegories. 


187]  THE  COLLECTIONS  6 1 

fifty  years  the  only  one  (except  Rebenstock's  edition,  which 
has  always  been  scarce)  to  be  printed,  is  that  made  by  Auri- 
faber.  He  had  begun  collecting  materials  for  it  with  a 
view  to  editing  at  least  ten  years,1  indeed  one  may  say 
twenty  years  before  it  came  out,  when  he  sat  at  Luther' 
table  and  took  notes  of  his  sayings  along  with  the  other 
students.  It  may  have  been  that  he  met  Lauterbach  at  this 
time,  when  the  latter  came  for  a  short  visit  from  Pirna 
where  he  was  pastor. 

It  was  not  until  about  1561,  however,  that  he  really  be- 
gan to  think  of  using  the  material  he  had  accumulated  for 
an  edition  of  Tischreden.  In  that  year  his  quarrel  with 
Chancellor  Briick  compelled  him  to  take  refuge  with  his 
former  patron  the  Count  of  Mansfeld,  and  the  five  years  of 
enforced  leisure  which  followed  he  used  to  good  advantage 
in  literary  labors.  He  was  doubtless  encouraged  to  publish 
the  Tischreden  by  the  success  his  edition  of  the  letters  had 
attained.  The  materials  in  his  hands  were  not  copious,  and 
to  supplement  them  he  turned  to  Lauterbach  whose  repu- 
tation as  the  best  of  the  notetakers  was  already  well  estab- 
lished. In  1562  he  got  hold  of  one  of  Lauterbach's  re- 
dactions— though  just  how  is  not  known.  He  knew  it  was 
Lauterbach's,  for  he  mentions  him  in  his  preface  as  his  chief 
source,  and  it  is  probable  that  Lauterbach  himself  gave  it  to 
him,  for  he  had  just  completed  it  himself,  and  there  would 
hardly  have  been  time  for  an  intermediary  copy.2 

1  In  the  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  Luther's  letters,  vol.  i,  which 
came  out  1556,  he  tells  us  that  he  had  already  been  collecting:  "Lutheri 
enarrationes  in  aliquot  libros  biblicos,  multorum  annorum  condones, 
disputationes,  concilia,  colloquia  &  epistolas." 

2  The  general  similarity  and  numerous  minor  differences  between 
Rebenstock,  the  Halle  MS.  and  Aurifaber  puzzled  investigators  like 
Bindseil,  who  did  not  know  the  history  of  the  redactions,  first  worked 
out  by  Meyer. 


62  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [^8 

In  the  MS.  at  Wolfenbuttel  mentioned  above  we  have  a 
fragment  of  what  is  either  a  fourth  redaction  by  Lauter- 
bach,  or,  what  is  more  probable,  an  early  attempt  by  Auri- 
faber.  It  is  extremely  interesting  as  being  something  be- 
tween Lauterbach's  earlier  redactions,  and  the  collection 
of  Aurifaber,  as  we  know  it  in  print.  It  contains  only  168 
sayings,  all  translated  into  German  in  Aurifaber's  manner. 
He  appears  to  have  omitted  the  introductions  and  extra 
material  put  into  his  third  redaction  by  Lauterbach,  which 
would  go  to  show  that  he  copied  one  of  the  first  two.  All 
the  material  in  this  MS.  was  incorporated  later  into  his 
printed  edition  by  Aurifaber. 

Aurifaber  was  so  much  pleased  with  Lauterbach's  re- 
daction that  he  adopted  it  as  the  basis  of  his  whole  work, 
and  did  not  change  its  form  much.  He  translated  all  the 
material  into  the  vernacular,  and  occasionally  would  im- 
prove Lauterbach's  account  by  means  of  another.1  Some- 
times the  same  saying  crept  in  twice.  Almost  all  the  ma- 
terial can  be  traced  to  its  source,  by  far  the  greater  part  in 
Lauterbach,  a  little  to  other  sources.  The  irreducible  min- 
imum, for  which  no  previous  authority  can  be  found,  comes 
from  Aurifaber's  own  notes,  or  from  what  he  had  copied 
of  Stolz.2 

1  Example,  Aurifaber,  ch.  13,  no.  39,  where  Lauterbach's  account 
(Bindseil,  i,  59)  is  corrected  by  Schlaginhaufen's   (Preger,  no.  522). 

2  Bindseil  noted  at  the  end  of  his  third  volume  the  passages  trans- 
lated from  Lauterbach  in  the  German  Tischreden;  every  new  research 
shows  more  parallels  between  this  edition  and  the  sources.  Cf. 
Meyer,  p.  33. 


CHAPTER  VI 
The   Printed  Editions   of   the   Table  Talk 

The  result  of  all  this  collecting  and  editing  was  seen  at 
last  in  July,  1566,  when  the  stout  folio  appeared  at  Eisle- 
ben.  Aurifaber  placed  the  arms  of  the  Counts  of  Mans- 
feld  on  the  reverse  of  the  title-page,  and  dedicated  the 
result  of  his  labors  comprehensively  to  "  Den  Edelen, 
Ehrenuesten,  Erbarn  und  Wolweisen,  Ammeistern,  Stadt- 
pflegern,  Eldtern,  Geheimbten,  Burgermeistern,  und  Rath, 
Der  Keisserlichen  Reichstedte,  Strassburg,  Augsburg,  Ulm, 
Norimberg,  Lubeck,  Hamburg,  Liineburg,  Braunschweig, 
Franckforth  am  Mayn,  und  Regensburg,  &c,  Meinen  gross- 
giinstigen  Herrn." 

The  Preface  tells  how  the  Tischreden  were  collected,  and 
gives  an  exalted  appreciation  of  their  value  in  satisfying 
"  geistlichen  Hunger  und  Durst."  1  They  at  once  became 
immensely  popular,  and  were  reprinted  from  this  edition  in 
five  years  at  least  six  times.  Two  of  the  new  editions  were 
pirated,  and  in  his  own  reprint  of  1568  Aurifaber  bitterly 
complains  of  this.  The  book  has  been  exploited,  he  says, 
by  "  Master  Klugling,  who  entered  into  my  labors,  changed 
the  title  and  altered  much  in  the  book,  at  sundry  times 
enlarging  and  (supposedly)  improving  it  with  new  sayings, 
all  without  my  knowledge  or  approval.  .  .  .  But  let  every 
one  know  that  if  there  is  any  one  who  can  improve  or  add 

1  Forstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  xxiii  et  seq.  See  Appendix 
for  list  of  editions. 

189]  63 


64  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [tqo 

to  the  Tischrcden,  it  is  I,  (I  can  say  it  without  vainglory) 
for  I  have  enough  in  MS.  to  make  a  new  volume,  or  at 
least  greatly  enlarge  my  first  one."  1 

The  changes  referred  to  by  Aurifaber  are  hardly  so  great 
as  to  justify  his  language  about  them.  That  of  the  title 
is  simply  the  insertion  of  Lauterbach's  name  along  with 
that  of  Aurifaber,  certainly  justifiable  from  the  amount  he 
contributed  to  it.2  The  other  additions  and  "  improve- 
ments "  are  very  slight ;  it  is  to  Aurifaber's  interest,  of 
course  to  exaggerate  the  faults  of  "  Master  Kliigling  "  in 
order  to  enhance  the  genuine  worth  of  his  own  reprints. 

The  next  editor  was  Rebenstock,  who  got  hold  of  one 
of  Lauterbach's  redactions  and  translated  the  whole  thing 
into  Latin.  His  edition  never  enjoyed  much  popularity, 
and  is  now  excessively  rare.  It  was  used  somewhat  outside 
of  Germany ;  for  example,  if  we  may  believe  a  French  trans- 
lator of  the  Table  Talk,  by  the  great  Bayle.3  The  work 
came  out  in  1571  in  two  octavo  volumes. 

There  is  a  preface  of  Rebenstock  in  a  letter  to  Philip 
Ludwig,  Count  of  Hanoia  and  Rineck,  Lord  of  Mintzen- 
berg.  It  is  a  long  exhortation,  mingled  with  sacred  history 
and  ending  with  a  eulogy  of  Luther.  As  to  the  Colloquies 
he  is  editing  he  says : 

A  certain  pious  man,  a  lover  of  the  Evangelic  truth,  wrote 
Martin  Luther's  Colloquies  in  Latin,  but  mixed  in  many  Ger- 
man words And  when  the  printers,  by  the  advice  of 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  xxvi,  xxvii. 

2  The  changes  are,  in  fact,  so  small  that  Bindseil  (ibid.)  did  not  think 
Aurifaber  could  be  referring  to  them,  and  looked  in  vain  for  some 
other  edition  which  would  correspond  to  his  language  more  accurately. 
It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  it  must  have  been  the  editions  of  1567 
which  he  referred  to,  though  he  made  them  out  worse  than  they 
really  were. 

8  Brunet,  Introduction  to  his  Propos  de  Table. 


I9I]        PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  65 

learned  men,  wished  to  publish  the  colloquies  in  Latin,  they 
asked  me  to  turn  the  German  words  into  Latin.  ...  I  never 
proposed  to  undertake  this  labor,  however,  in  order  to  defile 
Luther's  pious  sayings  with  other  impious  and  unedifying  ones, 
or  to  add  new  ones,  or  to  acquire  glory  and  profit  to  myself 
(as  the  Sacramentarians  and  Ranters  of  to-day  presume  to  do), 
but  I  proposed  to  render  our  master  his  praise,  and  so,  aided 
by  the  counsel  of  learned  men,  I  entered  upon  the  work.  .  .  . 

Dated  "  Ex  Cinericea  doma,  in  die  S.  Laurentii,  1571,"  and 
signed  "  H.  P.  Rebenstock  Escherheymensis  Ecclesiae  min- 
ister." x 

This  Preface  would  seem  to  show  that  Rebenstock  was  a 
mere  linguistic  aid,  and  not  an  editor  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  word.2  He  either  did  not  know,  or  did  not  reveal,  the 
name  of  the  "  pius  vir  "  who  made  the  collection,  but  he 
says  in  his  preface  that  it  was  not  Aurifaber.  We,  of 
course,  know  that  it  was  Lauterbach. 

The  first  editor  to  compete  with  Aurifaber  in  a  German 
edition  was  Stangwrald,  Candidate  of  Theology  in  Prussia. 
He  printed  a  first  edition  in  1571  and  a  second  in  1591.  He 
took  Aurifaber's  material,  but  arranged  it  in  a  different 
way,  instead  of  the  eighty  chapters  of  Aurifaber,  we  have 
nine  great  unnumbered  divisions,  and  forty-three  chapters 
under  these.  He  claims  to  have  used  Morlin's  notations 
to  the  MS.  of  Aurifaber,  as  well  as  the  notes  of  Mathesius 
and  others,  and  also  to  have  excised  some  sayings  which  he 
believed  unauthentic.  His  changes,  were,  however,  very 
slight  indeed.3 

1  Bindseil,  vol.  i,  p.  lxx.  2  Cf.  Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  6. 

3  Irmischer,  Tischredcn  in  Sdmmtliche  Werke  Luthcrs,  vol.  57,  Einl., 
pp.  xii-xiv.  A  full  description  of  all  the  editions  will  be  found  in  the 
Appendix.  This  present  chapter  aims  to  give  a  brief  account  of  each 
edition,  and  some  suggestions  as  to  the  critical  principles  to  he  applied 
in  getting  a  good  edition. 


66  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I92 

Nicholaus  Selneccer  (or  Selnecker)  was  the  next  editor. 
His  edition  come  out  in  1577.  He  recognized  in  his  title 
that  the  Tischreden  were  first  collected  by  Aurifaber,  and 
he  claims  to  have  brought  them  into  a  new  order  and  added 
an  index.  These  claims  are  unjustified.  He  merely  re- 
prints Stangwald's  edition  of  1571,  which  had  changed  the 
order  in  Aurifaber's.  He  was  enabled  to  make  this  claim  by 
the  fact  that  Stangwald  had  not  put  his  name  on  the  title 
page  of  his  edition  of  1571,  and  it  is  only  by  his  allusion 
to  it  in  his  subsequent  edition  that  we  know  it  was  his.  It 
was  once  a  question  whether  this  was  really  his  edition  or 
Selneccer's;  it  is  now  settled  that  it  is  Stangwald's.1 

The  first  editor  to  make  the  German  Tischreden  a.  part 
of  Luther's  Sdmmtliche  Werke  was  Walch,  who  published 
them  1 740-1 753.  They  form  volume  XXII  of  his  edition. 
He  gives  an  account  of  how  they  were  collected,  and  a  dis- 
cussion of  their  value  in  his  preface.  His  labors  were  con- 
fined to  comparing  Aurifaber,  Stangwald  and  Selneccer,  as 
none  of  the  sources  were  then  known.2 

The  so-called  Stuttgart-Leipzig  edition  of  1836  is  a 
mere  reprint  of  Walch. 

A  new  edition,  on  exactly  the  same  plan  was  undertaken 
in  1844  by  K.  E.  Forstemann.  It  was  based  like  Walch  on 
a  comparison  of  Aurifaber,  Stangwald  and  Selneccer. 
Forstemann  died  when  three  volumes  of  this  work  had  been 
completed,  and  H.  E.  Bindseil  edited  the  fourth  and  last. 
In  his  preface  to  this  he  states  the  method  of  his  work.  He 
compared  not  only  the  three  editions  and  Walch,  but  also 
Luther's  letters,  and  in  part  the  Latin  edition  (in  the  MS. 

1  Irmischer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  57,  p.  xiv.  Forstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit,  vol. 
iv,  Einl.,  xxxvii.  Some  of  Selneccer's  minute  changes  are  given  here. 
They  are  simply  verbal. 

2  See  infra,  Appendix. 


I93]        PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  fy 

he  edited  later).  He  discussed  the  sources  with  more 
science  than  any  one  had  used  hitherto,  though  he  knew 
nothing  of  them  except  as  they  were  mentioned  in  Auri- 
faber's  preface  and  Mathesius'  sermons.  He  went  as  far 
as  any  one  could  who  had  to  rely  on  the  old  collections,  and 
who  did  not  know  the  sources  directly. 

In  1854  Irmischer  edited  the  Tischreden  for  the  S'dmmt- 
liche  Werke,  published  at  Frankfurt-am-Main  and  Erlangen, 
of  which  they  form  six  volumes  numbered  57  to  62.  Irm- 
ischer proceeded  on  the  same  critical  principles  as  Walch, 
although  they  had  really  been  exhausted  by  previous  edi- 
tors. Since  then  no  other  work  of  this  kind  has  been  un- 
dertaken. The  volume  of  the  Weimar  edition  which  is  to 
be  dedicated  to  the  Tischreden  will  be  edited  on  entirely  dif- 
ferent principles.1 

The  years  1864- 1866  saw  a  new  Latin  edition  of  the 
Table  Talk — the  first  since  Rebenstock's.  Bindseil  edited 
it  from  a  MS.  he  found  in  the  Library  of  the  Orphan 
Asylum  at  Halle.  He  rightly  assigned  the  collection  of 
Tischreden  found  therein  to  Lauterbach,  but  was  sorely 
puzzled  to  explain  the  relations  of  his  MS.  with  Rebenstock 
on  the  one  hand  and  Aurifaber  on  the  other.2  He  did  the 
work  of  editing  thoroughly,  pointing  out  the  parallels  in 
the  German  and  previous  Latin  editions. 

The  year  1872  marks  an  era  in  the  publication  of  the 
Tischreden.  Prior  to  this  time  the  labors  of  editors  had 
been  confined  to  working  over  and  over  the  old  collections, 
especially  Aurifaber's.  Beginning  with  the  printing  of 
Lauterbach's  Tagebuch  in  1872  the  efforts  of  scholars  have 
been  turned  to  the  fresher  and  far  more  fruitful  field  of 

1  Cf.  infra,  p.  54,  n.  1. 

2  He  merely  stated  the  problem  without  answering  it.  The  answer 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  given  by  Meyer. 


68  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [ICj4 

the  original  notes.  J.  K.  Seidemann  1  was  the  first  to  see 
their  value,  and  he  edited  the  best  of  the  sources  in  the 
Tagebuch  mentioned  above.  He  prepared  two  other  MSS. 
for  the  press,  Dietrich's  notebook,  which  has  never  been 
printed,  since  Seidemann's  unfortunate  death  interrupted  his 
useful  labors,  and  the  Analecta  which  were  later  published 
by  Losche,  both  men  believing  them  to  have  been  the  Mathe- 
sian  collection.  The  value  of  the  Tagebuch  was  immediately 
recognized  by  scholars,  who  saw  the  relative  worthlessness 
of  the  older  collections  of  Tischreden.  Unfortunately 
Seidemann's  work  on  Dietrich,  the  most  valuable  source 
now  unpublished,  has  never  been  taken  up  again.  Seide- 
mann's "  diplomatically  correct  copy  "  was  used  by  Kostlin 
in  his  great  work. 

In  1885  Wrampelmeyer  followed  with  Cordatus's  Tage- 
buch. In  the  absence  of  the  means  of  judging  it  which  we 
possess  now,  he  immensely  overrated  its  value ;  to  him  even 
its  faults  were  qualities,  proving  its  authenticity.  Some 
of  its  failings  were  pointed  out  by  Preger  in  his  edition  of 
Schlaginhaufen,  some  by  Kroker  in  his  Mathcsian  Col- 
lection. 

Schlaginhaufen's  notes  found  an  able  editor  in  1888  in 
the  person  of  Preger.  They  at  once  took  their  place  as 
among  the  best  of  the  sources,  ranking  along  with  Lauter- 
bach's  Tagebuch  and  Dietrich's  notes. 

In  1892  Losche  edited  a  rather  worthless  MS.  under  the 
title  Analecta  Luthcrana  et  Melanchthonia,  believing  it  to 
be  the  Mathesian  collection,  the  existence  of  which  had  long 
been  known  by  references  to  it  by  Aurifaber  and  Mathesius 
himself.     Losche  was  lead  to  this  task  by  his  interest  in 

1  Losche  gives  a  sketch  of  'Seidemann's1  labors  in  this  field.  Analecta, 
Einl.,  p.  1  et  seq.;  Kostlin,  op.  cit.  (ed.  1889).  Vorwort,  p.  iii.  says  he 
used  Dietrich  in  Seidemann's  copy. 


I95]        PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  69 

Mathesius,  whose  life  he  had  written  and  whose  works  he 
had  edited.  Seidemann  had  left  a  correct  copy  of  the  MS. 
and  pointed  out  a  large  number  of  parallels  in  the  sources. 
In  verifying  his  parallels  Losche  found  three  hundred  which 
had  been  overlooked  by  Seidemann.  A  later  authority 
found  that  Losche  had  himself  overlooked  several  hundred.1 
We  have  already  seen  that  the  MS.  was  the  copy  of  a  copy 
of  Mathesius'  notebook  of  1540.  Losche  proved  this  date 
and  also  that  the  MS.  dated  from  the  last  part  of  the  15th 
century,  probably  after  Mathesius's  death  in  1565. 

The  real  Mathesian  collection  was  edited  in  1903  by 
Kroker.  It  is  extremely  valuable  as  opening  up  new 
sources  in  a  reliable  copy. 

One  attempt,  and  only  one,  has  hitherto  been  made  to  get 
a  comprehensive  edition  of  the  Tischreden  founded  on  the 
sources.  This  was  undertaken  by  Professor  A.  F.  Hoppe, 
of  St.  Louis  in  the  reprint  of  Walch's  Sammtliche  Werke. 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Lutherischer  Concordia  Verlag, 
1887.  The  scope  of  the  edition  is  indicated  in  its  title 
Dr.  Martin  Luthers  Colloquia  oder  Tischreden;  sum 
ersten  Male  berichtigt  und  erneuert  durch  Uebersetzung  der 
beiden  Hauptquellen  der  Tischreden  aus  der  lateinischen 
Originalen,  n'dmlich  des  Tagebuchs  des  Dr.  Conrad  Cor- 
datus  uber  Luther  153/  und  des  Tagebuchs  des  M.  Anto. 
Lauterbach  auf  das  Jahr  1538. 

In  his  introduction  Professor  Hoppe  gives  a  very  just 
idea  of  the  worthlessness  of  the  old  editions,  which  are 
nothing  but  Aurifaber  printed  over  and  over  again.  In- 
deed Aurifaber  is  very  severely  treated  by  the  new  editor 
who  says  he  handled  the  originals  very  arbitrarily,  took 
sayings  out  of  their  context,  made  mistakes  in  reading,  in 
dates,  in  translation,   in  assigning  sayings  to  wrong  per- 

1  Losche,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  6;  Kroker,  loc.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  28,  note  4. 


70  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [I96 

sons,  in  short  falsified  and  altered  to  suit  himself.  A  glow- 
ing description  of  the  high  worth  of  the  two  sources  used 
is  given,  taken  from  the  introductions  of  their  editors,  and 
then  the  work  of  this  new  edition  is  described.  520  dupli- 
cates, found  either  twice  in  the  Tischreden,  or  elsewhere 
in  the  works,  are  eliminated.  The  1843  paragraphs  of  Cor- 
datus  and  the  488  paragraphs  of  Lauterbach  are  translated 
and  incorporated.  Twenty-four  bits  from  Khumer  (i.  e.  the 
material  printed  in  Lauterbach's  Tagebtich  by  Seidemann) 
are  also  used.  The  Bible  quotations  have  been  improved 
by  reference  to  that  book.  Sayings  which  are  separated  in 
Walch  are  joined,  and  others  which  are  wrongly  joined 
are  separated. 

The  order  in  Walch  has  been  maintained,  i.  e.  the  topical 
order  of  Aurifaber.  Whenever  a  parallel  to  one  of  his 
sayings  has  been  found  in  the  sources,  the  account  is 
corrected  in  accordance  with  the  sources  or  their  account 
substituted.  The  parallels  so  treated  form  but  a  small  part 
(perhaps  one-tenth)  of  the  whole  edition;  all  sayings  which 
have  no  parallels  are  reprinted  exactly  as  before,  except 
the  duplicates  which  are  taken  out.  A  large  number  of 
sayings  in  Lauterbach  and  Cordatus  which  have  no  paral- 
lels in  Walch  are  printed  in  Appendices.1 

The  result  is  disappointing.  This  is  partly  because  the 
edition  came  out  before  the  other  sources  were  known, 
partly  from  too  great  conservatism  of  treatment.  The 
bulk  of  the  work  is  the  same,  after  all,  as  that  in  Walch. 
The  material  from  Cordatus  and  Lauterbach  is  thrown  in 
promiscuously  in  the  old  order,  which  makes  it  less  acces- 
sible and  less  valuable  than  in  the  original  form.  The  esti- 
mate of  Cordatus  by  Wrampelmeyer  is  taken  at  its  face 
value,  and  most  of  his  material  which  we  know  to  be  value- 

1  Hoppe,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  in  fine. 


igy]         PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  y1 

less  is  inserted  as  an  improvement  on  Aurifaber.  It  is 
singular  that  the  editor  does  not  recognize  (what  he  must 
have  known)  that  there  were  other  Hauptquellen,  and  that 
if  Aurifaber  is  worthless  when  we  can  find  a  parallel  to  him 
in  Lauterbach,  he  must  have  been  so  in  other  cases. 

The  editors  of  the  Weimar  edition1  plan  to  dedicate  one 
of  their  last  volumes  to  the  Table  Talk,  basing  it  on  a 
critical  study  of  the  sources.  This  will  certainly  be  the 
most  satisfactory  of  all  the  editions;  indeed,  unless  further 
sources  are  discovered,  which  is  not  probable,  it  should  be 
definitive.  Let  us  see  what  may  be  hoped  from  such  an 
edition — a  convenient  way  of  summing  up  the  results  of  our 
researches  in  the  sources. 

In  the  first  place  the  original  notes  should  be  the  only 
authority  used,  including  among  them  the  notebooks  which 
have  survived  in  the  Mathesian  collection,  but  excluding 
the  collections  of  Lauterbach  and  Aurifaber  as  too  un- 
reliable. 

The  notebooks  should  be  used  with  discrimination. 
Those  of  Dietrich,  Schlaginhaufen,  Lauterbach,  and  Mathe- 
sius,  are  prima  facie  reliable;  the  others  should  be  used 
rather  as  checks  on  these  and  as  helps  in  textual  criticism 
than  for  their  own  independent  value,  which  is  slight. 

The  MSS.  should  all  be  carefully  collated,  in  order  to 
get  the  best  text.  To  do  this  all  parallels  must  be  noted, 
both  for  the  sake  of  the  text  and  for  the  dates  which  are 
indispensable  to  a  really  scientific  edition.     Parallels  must, 

1  Professor  Drescher,  of  Breslau,  the  editor  of  the  Weimar  edition, 
has  kindly  informed  me,  titorougb.  the  publishing  house  of  Hermann 
Bohlaus  Nachfolger,  that  the  last  volume  is  to  he  assigned  to  the  Tisch- 
reden,  which  will  come  next  after  the  letters,  on  which  work  has  already 
been  begun. 


72  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [ICj8 

of  course,  be  carefully  divided  into  true,  apparent,  and  de- 
rived, and  treated  accordingly.1 

The  chronological  order  should  be  preserved.  The  topi- 
cal was  more  useful  to  those  whose  first  purpose  was  an  ex- 
position of  doctrine  or  an  authoritative  statement  in  some 
problem  of  theology,  but  for  the  scientific  historian,  as  well 
as  for  the  ordinary  reader  to-day,  the  chronological  order 
is  readily  seen  to  be  the  best.  The  source  of  each  saying 
should  be  indicated. 

An  edition  on  this  plan  would  have  a  real  use.  It 
would  save  the  scholar  going  to  a  number  of  sources  and 
reading  over  much  of  material  which  is  often  repetitious. 
By  getting  it  all  together  it  would  throw  a  much  stronger 
light  on  the  development  of  Luther's  life  and  thought  than 
the  fragmentary  sources  do. 

Let  us  see  how  much  time  we  can  expect  to  be  fairly 
covered  by  the  original  notes. 

1 531-1533.  The  notes  of  Schlaginhaufen  can  be  dated 
with  considerable  accuracy,  and  run  from  November,  1531 
to  September,  1532.  The  notes  of  Dietrich,  which  he  dates 
on  his  title-page  1 529-1 535  really  fall,  with  very  few  ex- 
ceptions between  November,  1531  and  October,  1533. 
Their  order  has  been  restored  and  their  chronology  estab- 
lished by  Preger.2 

1 536-1 537.  Notes  of  Lauterbach  and  Weller  in  6th 
section  of  Mathesius.  Fuller  parallels  and  supplementary 
material  found  in  the  MS.  known  as  Colloquia  Serotina. 

1538.     Lauterbach's  Tagebuch,  edited  by  Seidemann. 

1  True  parallels  feeing  those  in  which  two  or  more  reporters  took 
down  the  same  saying;  apparent  parallels  those  in  which  the  similarity 
is  due  to  Luther's  having  repeated  the  same  story  more  than  once ;  and 
derived  parallels  those  which  are  due  to  copying. 

-  Preger,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  xxi  et  scq.     See  supra,  p.  42. 


I99]         PRATED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  y^ 

I539-  Copies  from  Lauterbach's  Tagebuch  in  5th  sec- 
tion of  Mathesius. 

1540.  Notes  of  Mathesius  in  his  collection.  1st  sec- 
tion of  Kroker's  edition. 

I542~I543-  Notes  of  Heydenreich  in  2d  section  of 
Mathesius. 

!544-     Notes  of  Besold  in  3d  section  of  Mathesius. 

We  must  notice  that  the  sources  given  above  show  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  accuracy  in  dating.  Lauterbach's  Tage- 
buch of  1538  gives  the  day  on  which  everything  was  said ; 
in  other  cases  our  work  has  to  proceed  from  internal  evi- 
dence, which  gives  sometimes  the  exact  date,  often  only 
an  approximate  date.  E.  g.  we  can  say  that  no.  377  in 
Schlaginhaufen  was  said  May  31,  1532,  but  we  can  only 
say  that  nos.  378-548  fell  between  June  and  September  of 
that  year.  By  a  sort  of  system  of  interpolation  we  can  get 
the  date  more  nearly;  the  chances  are  that  a  num- 
ber at  the  beginning  of  this  series  fell  in  June,  one  in  the 
middle  in  July  or  August,  and  one  near  the  end  in  Septem- 
ber. These  dates  are  sufficiently  accurate  to  give  the  basis 
of  a  chronological  order  of  Tischreden.  They  will  be- 
come more  and  more  accurate  as  more  is  found  out  about 
Luther's  life,  and  as  parallels  from  other  notebooks,  and 
circumstances  gathered  from  the  letters  and  other  docu- 
ments are  compared  with  them. 

Secondly,  we  must  observe  that  quite  a  number  of  notes 
can  be  found  outside  of  these  years  and  the  sources  indi- 
cated for  them  which  will  partly  supply  the  lacunae.  Some 
of  those  in  Cordatus  can  be  dated;  a  few  other  dates  are 
given  in  Dietrich,  others  in  the  fourth  section  of  the  Mathe- 
sian  collection.  Great  caution  should  be  used  in  the  in- 
sertion of  such  notes ;  isolated  sayings  in  an  unchronological 
source  should  not  be  given  the  same  weight  as  those  which 
have,  so  to  speak,  a  strong  presumptive  case  from  the  fact 


74  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [200 

that  they  stand  in  a  source  which  arranges  its  notes  chrono- 
logically. Still,  with  care,  many  notes  can  be  rescued  from 
the  sources  which  will  partly  fill  up  the  blank  spaces. 

For  the  early  thirties  Dietrich,  Schlaginhaufen  and  Cor- 
datus  are  the  sources.  By  collation  of  the  three  much  may 
be  gained.  We  often  find  little  groups  of  chronologically 
ordered  sayings  which  supply  and  complement  each  other 
What  cannot  be  got  into  chronological  order  should  ba  put 
into  an  appendix  labelled,  Sayings  prior  to  1537  from  Cor- 
datus,  Dietrich  and  Schlaginhaufen.1 

The  notes  from  1 536-1 540  can  be  dated  with  great  ac- 
curacy, and  leave  little  to  be  desired.     They  are  also  full. 

It  is  for  the  last  years  of  Luther's  life  that  the  chrono- 
logy of  the  notes  is  hardest  to  determine.  Those  of 
Heydenreich  are  rather  uncertain,  sparse,  and  known  only 
in  a  copy.  Those  of  Plato  are  altogether  unreliable,  being 
mainly  extracts  from  others.  Those  of  Stolz  and  Auri- 
faber  have  become  irrecoverably  lost  in  the  collection  of  the 
latter.  Those  sayings  which  cannot  be  dated  must  be  rele- 
gated to  an  appendix.  The  smaller  their  number  is  the 
nearer  will  the  edition  reach  the  desired  goal. 

Such  an  edition  would  do  away  with  the  doubt  and  hesi- 
tation with  which  we  now  have  to  read  the  Table  Talk. 
Any  one  who  has  carefully  examined  the  best  sources  will 
surely  feel  that  we  must  give  them  the  same  degree  of  con- 
fidence at  least  that  we  give  to  Luther's  sermons;  and  in 
a  source  of  Luther's  life  so  rich  in  material,  such  an  in- 
crease in  certainty  will  be  an  immense  gain. 

The  source  of  each  saying  should  be  indicated,  as  a 
means  of  judging  of  its  worth.  In  summing  up  we  may 
say  that  the  greatest  faith  can  be  placed  in  Lauterbach,  Die- 
trich and  Schlaginhaufen,  and  only  a  little  less  in  Mathesius, 

1  Cf.  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  p.  63. 


201  ]        PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  TABLE  TALK  75 

Besold  and  Heydenreich.  Cordatus,  Weller  and  Plato  are 
untrustworthy,  but  with  discrimination  much  of  value  may 
be  abstracted  from  them.  The  collections  of  Lauterbach 
and  Aurifaber  are  practically  useless.  The  more  we  com- 
pare them  with  the  originals,  the  deeper  they  sink  in  our 
estimation.  But  a  complete  edition  would  have  to  take 
from  them  all  that  could  not  be  found  in  better  form  some- 
where else,  printing  it  as  so  much  new  material,  inferior  in 
value  to  the  sources,  but  not  negligible.1 

1  Cf.  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  pp.  64,  65 ;  Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  36. 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  Translations 

There  have  been  two  principal  translations  of  the  Tis- 
chreden  into  English,  and  a  number  of  minor  ones.  The 
first,1  made  by  Captain  Henry  Bell,  was  printed  at  London 
in  1652.  The  Translator's  Preface  is  interesting.  It 
begins : 

I,  Captain  Henry  Bell,  do  hereby  declare,  both  to  the  present 
age  and  also  to  posterity,  that  being  employed  beyond  the  seas 
in  state  affairs  years  together,  both  by  King  James  and  also  by 
the  late  King  Charles,  in  Germany,  I  did  hear  and  understand, 
in  all  places,  great  bewailing  and  lamentation  made,  by  reason 
of  the  destroying  and  burning  above  fourscore  thousand  of 
Martin  Luther's  books,  entitled,  His  Last  Divine  Discourses.  . . 

This  book  did  so  forward  the  Reformation,  that  the  Pope 
then  living,  vis.,  Gregory  XIII,  understanding  what  great  hurt 

1  Colloquia  Mensalia;  or,  Familiar  Discourses  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther, 
at  his  Table,  which  in  his  Lifetime  he  held  with  divers  Learned  Men, 
such  as  were  Philip  Melanchthon,  Casparus  Cruciger,  Justus  Jonas, 
Paulus  Eberus,  Vitus  Dietericus,  Johannes  Bugenhagen,  Johannes  For- 
sterus,  and  Others.  Containing  Questions  and  Answers  Touching  Re- 
ligion and  other  main  points  of  Doctrine;  as  also  Many  Notable  His- 
tories, and  all  sorts  of  Learning,  Comforts,  Advices,  Prophecies,  Ad- 
monitions, Directions,  Instructions,  Collected  first  together  by  Dr.  An- 
tonius  Lauterbach,  and  afterwards  disposed  into  certain  Commonplaces 
by  Dr.  John  Aurifaber,  D.  D.  This  title  is  followed  by  six  quotations 
as  to  the  utility  of  sacra  ad  mensam.  A  very  learned  "  Epistle  Dedi- 
catorie  to  the  Right  Honorable  John  Kendrick.  Lord  Major,  The  Right 
Worshipful  the  Sheriffs  and  Aldermen,  the  Common  Council,  and  other 
Worthie  Senators  and  Citizens  of  the  famous  Citie  of  London,"  signed 
by  Thomas  Thorowgood,  is  then  inserted. 

76  I202 


203j  THE  TRANSLATIONS  jj 

and  prejudice  he  and  his  popish  religion  had  already  received, 
by  reason  of  the  said  Luther's  Divine  Discourses,  and  also  fear- 
ing the  same  might  bring  further  contempt  and  mischief  upon 
himself,  and  upon  the  Popish  Church,  he,  therefore,  to  prevent 
the  same,  did  fiercely  stir  up  and  instigate  the  Emperor  then 
in  being,  viz.,  Rudolphus  II,  to  make  an  edict  throughout  the 
whole  Empire,  that  all  the  aforesaid  printed  books  should  be 

burnt which  edict   was   speedily   put  into  execution 

accordingly. 

It  pleased  God,  however,  that  in  1626  one  of  Bell's  Ger- 
man friends  should  find  one  of  the  aforesaid  printed  books 
in  a  deep  obscure  hole,  and  being  afraid  to  keep  it,  because 
Ferdinand  II  was  a  severe  persecutor  of  the  Protestant  Re- 
ligion, and  at  the  same  time  calling  to  mind  that  Bell  "  had 
the  High  Dutch  Tongue  very  perfect,"  sent  it  to  him  to 
translate  into  English. 

Bell  was  warned  by  a  vision  that  he  should  translate  it, 
and  shortly  after  he  was  committed  to  the  Keeper  of  Gate- 
House,  Westminster,  on  a  warrant  which  was  not  shown 
him,  and  kept  there  in  prison  ten  whole  years,  the  first  five 
of  which  he  spent  translating  the  book. 

"  Then  after  I  had  finished  the  said  translation  in  prison, 
the  late  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr.  Laud,  understanding 
that  I  had  translated  such  a  book,  called  Martin  Luther's 
Divine  Discourses,  sent  unto  me  his  chaplain  Dr.  Bray  "  to 
request  the  perusal  of  the  book.  After  some  demur  Bell 
sent  the  book  which  Laud  kept  two  years  and  then  returned 
under  fear  that  the  Commons  would  call  him  to  account. 

And  presently,  when  I  was  set  at  liberty  by  warrant  from 
the  whole  house  of  Lords,  according  to  his  majesty's  direction 
in  that  behalf ;  but  shortly  afterwards  the  archbishop  fell  into 
his  troubles,  and  was  by  the  parliament  sent  unto  the  Tower, 
and  afterwards  beheaded.  Insomuch  that  I  could  never  since 
hear  anything  touching  the  printing  of  my  book. 


78  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [204 

The  House  of  Commons  having  then  notice  that  I  had  trans- 
lated the  aforesaid  book,  they  sent  for  me,  and  did  appoint  a 
committee  to  see  it,  and  the  translation,  and  diligently  to  en- 
quire whether  the  translation  did  agree  with  the  original  or 
no ;  whereupon  they  desired  me  to  bring  the  same  before  them, 
sitting  then  in  the  Treasury  Chamber.  And  Sir  Edward  Dear- 
ing  being  chairman,  said  unto  me,  that  he  was  acquainted  with 
a  learned  minister  beneficed  in  Essex,  who  had  lived  long  in 
England,  but  was  born  in  High  Germany,  in  the  Palatinate, 
named  Mr.  Paul  Amiraut,  whom  the  committee  sending  for, 
desired  him  to  take  both  the  original  and  translation  into  his 
custody,  and  diligently  to  compare  them  together,  and  to  make 
report  unto  the  said  committee  whether  he  found  that  I  had 
rightly  and  truly  translated  it  according  to  the  original ;  which 
report  he  made  accordingly,  and  they  being  satisfied  therein, 
referred  it  to  two  of  the  assembly,  Mr.  Charles  Herle  and  Mr. 
Edward  Corbet,  desiring  them  diligently  to  peruse  the  same, 
and  to  make  report  unto  them  if  they  thought  it  fitting  to  be 
printed  and  published. 

Whereupon  they  made  report,  dated  the  10th  of  November, 
1646,  that  they  found  it  to  be  an  excellent  divine  work,  worthy 
the  light  and  publishing,  especially  in  regard  that  Luther,  in 
the  said  Discourses,  did  revoke  his  opinion,  which  he  formerly 
held,  touching  Consubstantiation  in  the  Sacrament.  Where- 
upon the  House  of  Commons,  the  24th  of  February,  1646,  did 
give  order  for  the  printing  thereof. 

Given  under  my  hand  the  third  day  of  July,  1650. 

Henry  Bell. 

This  account  is  such  a  tissue  of  mistakes  and  im- 
probabilities that  it  is  hardly  worth  serious  criticism. 
It  is  clear  both  from  the  absence  of  all  other  evidence,  and 
the  large  number  of  early  editions  of  Luther's  Tischredcn 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  that  no  such  order  was  ever 
issued  by  Rudolph  II  as  that  which  Bell  describes.  The  ten 
years'  arbitrary  imprisonment  is  so  improbable  that  it  may 


205]  THE  TRANSLATIONS  jg 

be  dismissed.1  The  whole  thing  has  the  air  of  being  in- 
vented to  heighten  the  interest  of  the  translation;  even  the 
vision  of  the  old  man  does  not  seem  to  be  a  genuine  bit  of 
self-deception. 

The  introduction  is  followed  by  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Commons,  which  gives  an  inter- 
esting 

Testimonie  and  Judgment:  Wee  finde  many  excellent  divine 
things  are  conteined  in  the  Book  worthie  the  light  and  publick 
view.  Amongst  which,  Luther  professeth  that  he  acknowledg- 
eth  his  error  which  hee  formerly  held  touching  the  real  pres- 
ence corporaliter  in  Coena  Domini. 

But  wee  finde  withal  many  impertinent  things :  som  things 
which  will  require  a  grain  or  two  of  Salt,  and  som  things  which 
will  require  a  Marginal  note  or  a  Preface. 

A  "  Marginal  note  "  is  herewith  added  by  the  Committee : 

And  no  marvel,  that  among  so  much  serious  discourse  in  mat- 
ters of  religion,  sometimes  at  Table  som  impertinent  things 
might  intermix  themselves  and  som  things  liberius  dicta  to  re- 
create and  refresh  the  Companie. 

Then  comes  the  order  of  the  Commons  to  print  it,  and 
then  a  short  extract  from  Aurifaber  called  "  Testimonie  of 

1  Arbitrary  imprisonment  was  resorted  to  at  this  time,  but  only  in 
important  political  cases,  such  as  those  of  Pym  and  Eliot.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  Bell  may  have  been  really  imprisoned  for  some  cause  he  pre- 
fers not  to  mention.  Hazlitt  says  in  a  note  that  the  cause  was  that  he 
pressed  for  the  payment  of  arrears  in  his  salary,  an  explanation  for 
which  he  gives  no  authority. 

This  Preface  worried  Walch  (op,  cit.,  vol.  xxii,  Einl.,  pp.  17,  18)  a 
good  deal.  He  had  not  seen  the  original,  but  quotes  from  a  partial 
translation  of  J.  Beaumont,  whose  interest  in  it  was  due  to  the  super- 
natural phenomenon  recounted.  (Tractat  von  Geistern,  Erscheinungen, 
&c,  iii,  73.) 


80  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [206 

Aurifaber  in  his  Preface  to  his  Book  "  and  notes  from 
"W.D.",  "J.L."  and  "  J.D.".  Then  Aurifaber's  preface, 
dated  1569,  in  full. 

The  same  Eighty  Chapters  are  here  as  in  Aurifaber,  but 
the  order  is  somewhat  changed.  The  XlXth  Caption  is 
changed  from  "  Vom  Sacrament  des  Alters  des  waren  Leibs 
und  Bluts  Christi  "  to  "  Of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper." 

There  is  an  appendix  of  Luther's  Prophecies.  The 
Imprimatur,  at  the  end,  is  dated  August,  1650,  signed  by 
John  Downame. 

Comparison  shows  that  this  was  translated  from  one  of 
Aurifaber's  editions;  it  is  nearest  like  that  of  1571  (See 
Appendix  p.  121  ).1  The  translation  is  not  complete,  a  very 
rough  guess  would  be  that  two-thirds  of  the  original  was 
translated.  The  omissions  were  made  with  the  purpose  of 
pleasing  the  theologians  of  that  day  and  place.  Much  of 
the  chapter  on  The  Sacrament  is  omitted,  but  I  can  find 
nothing  in  it  to  justify  the  Committee's  opinion  that  Luther 
retracted  his  former  error  on  this  point.2 

This  translation  was  reprinted  1791  with  "  The  Life 
and  Character  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther:  by  John  Gottlieb 
Burckhardt,  D.  D.,  minister  of  the  German  Lutheran  Con- 
gregation at  the  Savoy,  in  London "  prefixed.  In  this 
edition,  between  pages  iv  and  v  of  Bell's  narrative  there 
is  a  "  Picture  of  Popery  "  by  John  Ryland  in  four  pages. 
It  is  in  the  good  old-fashioned  style  of  invective.     In  this 

1  Points  of  resemblance  are :  Mention  of  Lauterbach's  and  Auri- 
faber's name  on  titlepage;  date  of  preface  1569;  Prophecies  at  the  end, 
and  others  less  striking. 

8  Bell  himself  implies  the  Committee  had  told  him  that  Luther  had  re- 
tracted on  this  point.  Walch,  op.  cit.,  vol.  xxii,  p.  18,  speaks  of  the 
charge  and  indignantly  denies  it. 


207]  THE  TRANSLATIONS  8 1 

edition  the  chapter  on  Witchcraft  was  left  out,  as  well  as 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Commons,  and  the 
Dedicatory  Epistle  and  Testimonies.  This  translation  was 
reprinted  again  in  1818. 

Another  partial  translation,  Choice  Fragments  from  the 
Discourses  of  Luther,  was  published  in  1832.  The  trans- 
lator, who  does  not  give  his  name,  was  a  zealous  Protes- 
tant and  a  decorous,  conventional  Englishman.  He  sup- 
pressed with  the  greatest  care  whatever  really  showed  the 
free,  joyous  and  somewhat  coarse  character  of  Luther,  and 
in  his  translation  we  see  him  transformed  into  an  English 
clergyman  with  an  unctuous  regard  for  the  proprieties, 
polished,  well  brought  up,  grave  and  formal  in  his  conver- 
sation.1 

The  Tischreden  were  translated  a  third  time  by  William 
Hazlitt,  son  of  the  celebrated  essayist,  in  1848.  The  pre- 
face is  taken  half  from  Bell's  narrative,  which  is  quoted 
without  comment  in  an  abridged  form,  and  half  from  the 
preface  to  Brunet's  French  translation,  adding  to  the  er- 
rors of  the  sources  several  of  the  author's  own.  He  does 
not  acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  Brunet,  but  follows 
him  in  calling  "  Selneccer "  "  Selneuer "  and  in  giving 
Stangwald's  edition  of  1591  as  of  1590.  From  Brunet  he 
quotes  Fabricius,  Ccntifolium  Lutheranum,  as  though  he 
had  seen  the  book  himself.  From  Brunet  he  gets  the  anec- 
dote of  Luther's  throwing  the  gruel  into  his  disciple's  face, 
but  he  adds  without  any  authority  whatever  that  it  was  "told 
by   Luther   himself   to    Dr.    Zincgreff "    (who    was   born 

1  This  translation  is  in  the  Lenox  Library.  My  characterization  is 
taken  from  Brunet,  Propos  de  Table,  Introduction,  p.  18:  "II  a  sup- 
prime  avec  le  plus  grand  soin  tout  ce  qui  montre  dans  son  interieur  le 
pere  de  la  reforme ;  il  a  voulu  le  peindre  en  beau ;  il  en  fait  un  preben- 
dier  anglicain,  poli,  bien  eleve,  a  la  parole  grave,"  etc. 


82  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [2o8 

half  a  century  after  Luther's  death).1  A  translation  of 
Aurifaber's  preface  is  given,  but  only  a  selection  of  the  Tisch- 
reden,  embracing  perhaps  a  fourth  of  the  material  found 
in  Aurifaber.  The  style  of  the  English  is  excellent,  col- 
loquial and  yet  smooth.  It  seems  to  have  been  made  from 
the  German  (though  Hazlitt  tells  us  he  had  compared  the 
translations  of  Michelet  with  his  own)  and  is  sufficiently 
accurate.2 

This  work  has  reappeared  a  number  of  times.  Others 
of  minor  importance  have  been  made,  among  which 
may  be  mentioned  a  number  of  books  either  translated  from 
Michelet's  Vie  de  Martin  Luther  par  lui-meme  or  closely 
modelled  on  it.     Hazlitt  Englished  this  work,  others  pub- 

1  Hazlitt,  Luther's  Table  Talk,  Introduction,  p.  10  (ed.  of  1848)  : 
"An  anecdote  told  by  Luther  himself  to  Dr.  Zincgreff,  amusingly  illus- 
trates the  assiduity  of  these  German  Boswells.  During  a  colloquy,  in 
which  Dominus  Martinus  was  exhibiting  his  wonted  energy  and  vivacity, 
he  observed  a  disciple  hard  at  work  with  pencil  and  paper.  The  Doctor, 
slily  filling  his  huge  wooden  spoon  with  the  gruel  he  was  discussing  by 
way  of  supper,  rose,  and  going  to  the  absorbed  note-taker,  threw  the 
gruel  in  his  face,  and  said,  laughing  lustily :  '  Put  that  down  too !' " 
Hazlitt  gives  no  authority  for  this  story,  which  he  probably  took  from 
a  footnote  in  Brunet's  Introduction,  but  I  have  found  it  in  Dr.  J.  W. 
Zincgreff' s  Teutscher  Nation  Apophthegmata,  p.  252,  where  it  is  in  the 
following  form:  "ALs  er  [sc.  Luther]  eines  jungen  Studenten  eines 
rechten  Speichelleckers  beym  Tisch  gewahr  wurde,  dir  hinder  ihm 
stund  und  alles  was  er  redte  ohn  verstand  oder  unterscheid  in  seine 
Schreibtafel  aufgezeichnete,  verdrosse  ihm  sehr,  Hess  mit  Fleiss  einen 
grueltzen  druber  und  Sagte :  '  Schreib  diesen  auch  auf!'"  Zincgreff 
gives  no  authority.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  the  story  in  the  Tisch- 
reden  or  any  of  Luther's  works,  and  it  has  no  intrinsic  probability.  We 
have  no  other  instance  of  Luther  indulging  in  a  practical  joke.  The 
story  is  quoted  literally  and  without  remark  by  Brunet.  It  is  Hazlitt 
who  is  responsible  for  the  addition  that  Luther  himself  told  it  to  Zinc- 
greff, which  is  impossible,  as  the  latter  was  born  in  1591.  Besides 
noticing  the  lack  of  critical  discernment,  it  is  interesting  to  see  how  the 
anecdote  grew  in  Hazlitt's  translation. 

2  In  his  translation  of  Michelet's  book  referred  to  just  below,  he  says 
he  compared  Bell's,  Michelet's,  Audin's,  and  his  own. 


20g]  THE  TRANSLATIONS  g- 

lished  books  with  the  same  title  either  with  or  without 
acknowledgment  of  the  source.1 

A  considerable  number  of  Luther's  sayings  are  trans- 
lated into  French  by  the  celebrated  historian  Jules  Michelet 
in   a   book  entitled  Memoires   de  Luther  ecrits  par  lui- 
meme;  traduits  et  mis  en  ordre  par  M.   Michelet  .... 
Paris,  1835.     The  author's  preface  testifies  to  his  admir- 
ation of  the  reformer,  although  he  is  not  a  Protestant.     The 
work  consists  of  extracts  from  Luther's  writings  and  Table 
Talk  passim.     Bk.,  IV,  however,  consists  entirely  of  ex- 
tracts from  the  Table  Talk,  to  illustrate  Luther's  family 
life,  and  opinions  about  marriage,  children,  nature  and  the 
Bible,  the  Fathers,  schoolmen,  Pope,  councils,  universities, 
arts,  music  and  preaching.     The  chapter  ends  with  Luther's 
admission  of  his  own  violence  and  a  rather  feeble  transla- 
tion of  the  passage  in  which  Luther  says  he  must  have  pa- 
tience with  the  Pope  and  Kathe.     The  appendix   (p.  xci) 
describes  Aurifaber's  edition  of  the  Tischreden.2 

The  first  (and  perhaps  the  only)  attempt  to  translate 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  Tischreden  into  French  in  a 
volume  by  themselves,  was  made  by  Gustave  Brunet:  Les 
Propos  de  Table  de  Martin  Luther,  revus  sur  les  editions 
originates  et  traduites  pour  la  premiere  fois  en  frangais. 
Paris,  1844.  The  introduction  is  bright,  but  uncritical. 
After  an  eloquent  appreciation  of  the  value  of  the  Table 
Talk  and  an  apology  for  its  occasional  coarseness,  the  au- 
thor tells  us  how  the  sayings  were  collected,  repeating  the 

1  Full  list  of  these  in  Appendix. 

2  From  which  we  may  infer  that  it  was  used.  Other  Tischreden  ap- 
peared m  French  „  J.  M.  V.  Audin:  Histoire  de  la  vie,  des  ouvragTs 
e  des  doctrines  de  Luther,  1839.  These  are  spoken  of  by  Hazlitt 
(supra  note  1).  Audin  was  a  Catholic  historian.  The  work  is  in  the 
Astor  Library. 


84*  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [2io 

anecdote  of  Zincgreff,  but  without  any  reference  except  the 
name.  A  short  account  of  the  work  of  Michelet  and  Audin 
is  followed  by  an  equally  brief  description  of  the  German 
editions,  in  which  the  same  mistakes  are  made  as  were  made 
four  years  later  by  Hazlitt,  who  probably  copied  from  him. 
Selneccer  appears  as  Selneuer,  the  edition  of  1591  appears 
as  1590,  and  the  first  volume  of  Rebenstock  is  assigned  to 
1558,  an  error  not  corrected  in  any  account  until  Bindseil's 
Colloquia  appeared,  in  1863.  An  account  is  given  of  the 
English  translation  of  Bell,  and  of  that  of  1832. 

The  translator  claims  to  have  compared  the  editions  and 
to  have  selected  the  best  text.  He  changed  the  order  of  the 
other  editions  entirely,  writing  solely  from  the  point  of 
view  of  interest.  His  principle  of  selection  is  the  opposite 
of  that  of  Hazlitt,  the  more  spicy  a  thing  is  the  more  relish 
it  has  for  him.  His  copious  notes  make  the  work  more 
readable.  He  begins  with  a  chapter  on  "  Le  diable,  les 
sorcieres,  les  incubes  &c."  This  is  followed  by  one  entitled 
"  Contes,  apologues  et  joyeux  devis."  The  worst  of  these 
he  inserts  in  the  notes  in  Latin,  remarking  "  qu'ils  ont  tout 
l'air  d'une  page  des  faceties  de  Pogge  ou  des  nouvelles  de 
Morlino."  Next  to  the  "  petits  contes  polissons  "  the  au- 
thor likes  best  those  in  which  Luther  talked  about  his 
enemies,  or  showed  himself  the  victim  of  some  superstition. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Table  Talk  in  Literature 

The  period  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany  was  one  of 
great  literary  as  well  as  great  spiritual  activity.  Not  since 
the  efflorescence  of  lyric  and  epic  poetry  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  nor  again  until  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth, 
do  we  find  anything  equal  in  quantity  and  power  to  the 
literary  output  of  this  great  age.  True,  no  world  poet  ap- 
peared who  contends  the  palm  with  Goethe  and  Schiller  or 
even  with  Gottfried  von  Strassburg  and  Walther  von  der 
Vogelweide :  "  the  Aristophanic  age  produced  no  Aristo- 
phanes," *  but  nevertheless  the  literature  of  the  Reformation 
is  full  of  significance,  vitality  and  charm. 

The  characteristics  of  the  time  were  intense  nationalism, 
strong  religious  feeling,  and  a  powerful  appeal  to  the  com- 
mon man,  in  fact  intensity  in  all  forms,  which  often  showed 
itself  in  bitter  satire  and  mocking  laughter.  The  title  of 
Pauli's  farcical  stories,  Schimpf  und  Ernst — mocking  jest 
and  earnest  mingled,  might  well  be  the  motto  of  the  age. 
Here,  as  in  the  tales  of  Claus  Narr,  the  romances,  the  plays, 
many  of  them,  of  Hans  Sachs,  and  the  fable  of  Reinccke 
Ftichs  and  those  attributed  to  Aesop,  we  see  the  appeal  to 
the  peasant,  the  common  man,  over  against  the  old  aristo- 
cracy. Sometimes  the  appeal  was  not  to  the  peasant's  best 
side — the  adventures  of  Till  Eulenspiegel  show  how  a  clever 

1  Scherer,  Geschichte  d.  deut.  Literatur. 
211]  85 


86  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [2I2 

scamp  outwits  his  superiors,  and  the  apotheosis  of  coarse- 
ness in  St.  Grobianus,  a  character  invented  by  Brandt  in  his 
famous  satire  the  Ship  of  Fools,  was  typical  of  the  least 
pleasant  side  of  the  exuberant  vitality  which  made  itself 
manifest  everywhere.1 

The  fiery  dialogues  of  Hutton,  as  well  as  the  appeals 
of  Luther  and  a  host  of  less  famous  men,  show  how  deeply 
rooted  was  the  nationalism  which  rebelled  against  the  crafty 
domination  of  foreigners;  but  deepest  and  loudest  of  all  was 
the  cry  for  a  purer  religion  and  a  more  vital  faith.  The 
satirization  of  the  clergy  had  been  common  since  the  time 
of  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide  at  least,  but  the  number 
and  bitterness  of  these  satires  increased  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  The  polished  wit  of  Erasmus  supplied  to  the  up- 
per class  who  could  appreciate  his  Latin  style  what  the 
Litterae  Obscurorum  Virorum  of  Rubianus  and  his  colla- 
borators gave  to  the  students,  and  such  popular  Pasquille  as 
Die  Krankheit  der  Messe  and  Der  Curtisan  und  Pfrilnden- 
fresser  furnished  to  those  who  could  read  only  German. 

Of  this  wonderful  time  Luther  was  the  heart  and  soul. 
How  tremendous  was  the  place  he  filled  in  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen  may  be  seen  by  the  popularity  of  his  works, 
as  well  as  by  the  frequency  of  literary  allusion  to  him. 
The  press  was  full  of  such  little  pamphlets  as  Luther's  Pas- 
sion, and  even  the  plays  were  deeply  influenced  by  his 
teaching.2  None  of  Luther's  works  was  more  popular  than 
his  Table  Talk,  published,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Aurifaber,  in 
1566.     Before  the  century  was  over  no  less  than  twelve 

1  Dedekind,  in  1549,  wrote  a  poem  on  St.  Grobianus,  who  is  always 
appearing  elsewhere.  The  same  spirit  is  seen  in  Fischer's  translation  of 
Rabelais. 

2  Very  many  such  pamphlets  are  reproduced  in  O.  Schade's  Satiren 
und  Pasquille  aus  der  Reformationzeit.  For  the  influence  on  the  drama, 
see  below  on  the  Franckfurt  Faust. 


213]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  LITERATURE  87 

editions  were  called  for  in  German,  besides  the  Latin  trans- 
lation.1 

The  cause  of  their  popularity  is  not  hard  to  discover.  In 
reading  them  we  have  the  concentrated  spirit  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  the  love  of  anecdote  and  satire,  the  popular 
note,  the  strong  national  and  religious  feeling,  and  even 
the  flavor  of  "  grobianism  "  which  nothing  escaped.  Be- 
sides all  this,  there  is  the  personal  interest,  which  is  perhaps 
the  chief  one  to-day,  and  was  not  less  powerful  then;  the 
same  sort  of  interest  which  will  always  make  Eckermann's 
Gesprdche  mit  Goethe,  or  Bourienne's  Memoires  of  Napo- 
leon widely  read.  We  see  the  great  man's  daily  life  and 
intimate  thoughts  portrayed  with  a  frankness  and  unre- 
serve which  are  refreshing. 

In  reading  the  Table  Talk  we  are  constantly  reminded  of 
the  dialogues  and  satires  so  common  and  so  popular  at  that 
time.  Occasional  allusions  to  Grobianus,  the  frequent  ap- 
pearance of  stories  about  animals,  and  the  perpetual  invec- 
tive against  Rome  and  the  clergy, — all  these  are  revelations 
of  the  Zeitgeist  which  appears  in  all  the  literary  produc- 
tions of  the  time.2  Luther,  however,  not  only  borrowed 
much  from  his  contemporaries,  but  greatly  enriched  their 
speech  in  return.  Even  his  casual  utterances  often  im- 
pressed themselves  on  the  speech  of  his  countrymen,  and  at- 
tained a  proverbial  currency.     Such  sayings  as: 

1  See  Appendix  for  these  editions.  The  popularity  of  the  work  seems 
to  have  home  some  relation  to  the  general  literary  activity  of  the  coun- 
try; there  were  only  four  editions  in  the  seventeenth  century,  two  in 
the  eighteenth,  and  more  than  nine  in  the  nineteenth,  not  counting  five 
editions  of  sources. 

2  For  Grobianus,  cf.  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no.  1738.  Cf.  Luther's 
animal  fables,  e,  g.,  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  114,  et  saepe,  with  such 
satires  as,  "  Ein  Gesprech  eines  Fuchs  und  Wolfs,"  in  Schade,  op.  cit., 
vol.  ii,  no.  iii.  Cf.  also  ibid.,  vol.  i,  no.  i:  "Ein  Clag  und  Bitt  der 
deutschen  Nation,"  with  such  of  Luther's  sayings  as  Seidemann,  op.  cit., 
p.  10. 


88  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [2l* 

Fruhe  aufstehen  und  jung  freien 
Soil  niemands  gereuen,1 

and 

Wer  will  haben  rein  sein  haus 

Der  behalt  Pfaffen  und  Monche  draus,2 

are  good  examples.  Some  sayings  found  in  his  conversation 
have  been  such  as  he  disapproved  and  refuted,  though  even 
thus  they  took  a  lasting  form  in  the  way  he  quoted  them. 
Such,  for  example  is  the: 

Bleibe  gern  allein, 

So  bleiben  euer  Herzen  rein.3 

Perhaps  the  most  famous  of  his  authentic  sayings  is  one 
which  is  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  apostle  of  marri- 
age and  the  domestic  virtues  as  against  the  Catholic  ideal 
of  celibacy: 

1Xanthippus:  "  Gute  alte  deutsche  Sprikhe,"  in  Preussische  Jahr- 
biicher,  vol.  85  (July  to  Sept.,  1896),  three  articles,  pp.  149,  344,  and 
503  respectively.  This  saying  is  on  p.  351,  quoted  from  Forstemann- 
Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  41. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  363,  quoting  Forstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  407. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  151,  quoting  Forstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  164. 
Other  examples  are  given  elsewhere,  e.  g.,  p.  505.  Zincgreff,  in  his 
Teutscher  Nation  Apophthegmata,  gives  some  proverbs  of  Luther,  which 
appear  to  be  mainly  apocryphal.  Like  other  great  men,  Luther  had  say- 
ings fathered  upon  him  which  were  not  genuine.     Such  is  the  celebrated 

"  Wer  liebt  nicht  Wein,  Weib  und  Gesang, 
Der  bleibt  ein  Narr  sein  Lebenslang." 

It  is  not  found  in  any  of  Luther's  works,  nor  in  the  Table  Talk,  and 
was  first  printed,  as  far  as  known,  in  1775,  in  Wandsbecker  Botcn.  Cf. 
Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  678,  note  to  p.  507.  The  verse  has  just 
enough  of  Luther's  spirit  to  make  it  a  good  caricature. 


215]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  LITERATURE  89 

Nicht  liebers  auf  Erden 

Denn  Frawenlieb  wems  kann  werden.1 

A  still  profounder  influence  is  seen  in  the  coloring  taken 
from  the  Tischreden  by  the  Faust  written  anonymously  and 
produced  at  Frankfurt  in  1587.  This,  of  course,  is  doubly 
interesting  as  bringing  the  work  into  a  direct  relation  with 
the  greatest  masterpiece  of  German  literature.  In  this  play 
Mephistopheles  "  takes  many  sententious  rimes  from 
Brandt's  N arrenschiif  and  Luther's  Tischreden."  2  The 
author  makes  Faust's  fall  from  grace  an  apostasy  from  the 
Wittenberg  theology,  and  his  repentence  is  taken  from  ex- 
pressions of  Luther's  in  the  Table  Talk. 

The  brilliant  literary  promise  of  the  sixteenth  century 
was  sadly  disappointed  in  the  seventeenth  and  early  eigh- 
teenth. It  really  seemed  as  if  the  Thirty  Years'  War  had 
blasted  all  the  artistic  powers  which  were  so  strongly  de- 
veloped before  it.  The  nation  looked  to  France  for  its 
literature  and  canons  of  taste,  and  the  Table  Talk  fell  into 
the  obscurity  which  most  German  works  shared  in  this 
period.     Something  of  a  revival  is  seen  in  the  renewed  in- 

1  Forstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  75,  Xanthippus,  loc.  cit.,  p. 
346.  The  enemies  of  Luther  have  twisted  this  into  a  confession  of 
sensuality.  The  same  idea  of  Luther  as  an  apostle  of  the  joys  of  the 
flesh  is  exhibited  by  one  who  was  no  enemy  of  his,  the  once  celebrated 
Philarete  Chasle,  in  an  article  called  "  La  Renaissance  Sensuelle,"  in 
Revue  des  Deux  Mondcs,  March,  1842,  where  he  compares  him  to  Rabe- 
lais, Skelton  and  Folengo. 

2  Schmidt:  "Faust  und  Luther,"  in  Sitzungsberichte  d.  k.  Preuss. 
Akad.  d.  Wiss.  The  author  collects  a  large  number  of  parallel  passages 
which  show  how  much  Faust  was  influenced  by  the  Tischreden.  Minor 
points  are  that  the  devil  appears  to  Faust  as  he  had  to  Luther;  Helena 
is  modelled  on  Luther's  idea  of  a  succubus;  Faust's  impression  of  Rome 
is  taken  from  Luther's  words  on  the  same,  and  also  his  estimate  of  the 
"frankly  swinish"  life  of  the  Turks.     See  especially  pp.  568,  571. 


90  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [216 

terest  taken  in  it  in  the  nineteenth  century,  not  only  in  Ger- 
many x  but  in  other  countries  as  well.2 

We  have  spoken  of  those  qualities  of  the  Tischreden 
which  are  due  to  its  environment  and  make  it  interesting 
as  a  typical  product  of  the  age ;  let  us  now  turn  to  some  of 
its  individual  peculiarities. 

In  the  first  place  the  Table  Talk  is  not  a  literary  work,  in 
the  narrow  sense  of  that  term,  at  all.  In  an  age  of  rough- 
ness and  bad  literary  form  it  has  not  even  the  polish  of 
Luther's  written  works,  or  of  the  dialogues  or  plays  with 
which  we  have  been  comparing  it.  The  first  thing  which 
strikes  us  on  opening  one  of  the  sources  (not  Aurifaber)  is 
the  mixture  of  languages  spoken  by  the  company.  Latin 
and  German  are  so  easily  interchangeable  that  a  sentence 
is  often  begun  in  one  and  ended  in  the  other.  "  Christus 
is  unzuverstehen,  quia  est  deus  " ; 3  "  Mein  ganz  Leben  ist 
eitel  patientia."  4  It  is  almost  superfluous  to  give  examples 
of  so  common  a  phenomenon. 

The  reason  of  this  was  simply  that  both  languages  were 

1  An  unfavorable  estimate  of  the  Table  Talk,  together  with  the  idea 
that  it  had  a  strong  influence  in  fixing  the  German  burger  type,  is 
found  in  Lavisse  &  Rambaud,  Histoire  Generale,  iv,  p.  423.  The  num- 
ber of  editions  (see  supra,  p.  69,  n.  2)  shows  their  popularity. 

2  For  translations,  see  Appendix.  Brunet  (Propos  de  Table,  Intro- 
duction) says  that  Bayle  commented  on  them.  See  Hereford,  Literary 
Relations  of  England  and  Germany  in  the  Sixteenth  Century. 

3  Preger,  op.  cit.,  no.  301. 

4  Bindseil,  Colloquia,  vol.  iii,  p.  167.  That  this  was  their  ordinary 
method  of  talking  can  be  seen  not  only  from  the  Table  Talk,  but  from 
the  testimony  of  Jonas,  who  tells  us  (Letter  of  July  6.  1537,  quoted  by 
Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  4)  that  he  found  Luther  sick  in  bed  "nunc  Deum 
Patrem  nunc  Christum  Dominum,  nunc  Latine  nunc  Germanice  invo- 
cantem."  This  mixture,  which  we  call  macaronic,  and  the  Germans 
messingisch  (Kroker,  op.  cit.,  p.  5).  would  have  appeared  less  strange 
even  in  a  literary  work  at  that  time.  Among  numerous  examples  of  it 
I  will  cite  only  the  well-known  Carmina  Burana. 


217]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  LITERATURE  g>i 

equally  familiar,  and  the  attempt  to  discover  any  other  rea- 
son is  unnecessary.  Wrampelmeyer  *  is  led  by  his  patriot- 
ism to  the  discovery  that  German  is  the  language  used  to 
express  the  main  thought,  an  idea  which  seems  to  me  fanci- 
ful. Losche  thinks  Latin  was  used  largely  to  spare  the 
women's  ears  what  they  should  not  hear.2  This  is  a  nine- 
teenth-century idea,  which  would  be  entirely  alien  to  the 
sixteenth.  The  precaution  would  have  been  useless,  for 
Kathe,  at  least,  knew  enough  Latin  to  keep  up  with  the 
conversation.3  Then  again  Luther  took  no  pains  to  avoid 
remarks  to  or  about  her  which  shock  our  fastidious  de- 
corum, though  they  certainly  would  not  have  appeared  ob- 
jectionable to  the  most  cultivated  taste  of  Luther's  time.4 
In  general  the  students  put  down  the  sayings  in  the  lan- 
guage in  which  they  were  uttered,  as  would  usually  be  the 
easier  thing  to  do,  but  sometimes  they  translated  a  German 
remark  into  Latin  which  they  could  write  faster.  For  the 
same  reason  they  would  put  all  their  own  remarks  in  that 
tongue,  and  all  matter  supplied  by  them,  such  as  details 
of  time,  place,  and  occasion.  One  instance  in  which  they 
clearly  translated  Luther's  remarks  is  that  in  which  he  is 
represented  as  consoling  his  poor  old  dying  Muhme  Lehna 
in  the  learned  tongue  which  must  have  been  unfamiliar  to 
her.5    Sometimes  Greek6  and  even  Hebrew  are  introduced, 

1  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  34. 

2  Losche,  Analecta,  Einl.,  p.  3.  3  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  3. 

4  E.  g.,  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no.  1597;  Preger,  op.  cit.,  no.  419. 

5  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  217.  Cf.  ibid.,  p.  213,  where  he  consoles 
Cranach  in  the  same  tongue. 

6  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  3.  An  example  of  the  use  of  Hebrew  is  found 
in  the  introduction  of  the  word  Scheflimini  (Shebh  I'mini,  quoted  from 
Psalm  ex.  1)  in  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  242  (and  thence  taken  into  Auri- 
faber,  Forstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  322)  without  any  indi- 
cation, to  the  layman,  of  its  meaning  or  language.  I  am  indebted  to 
my  father's  knowledge  of  Hebrew  for  its  translation :  "  Sit  thou  on  my 
right  handl" 


g2  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [2I8 

though  only  by  way  of  short  quotations.  One  of  these 
was  made  apparently  to  tease  Kathe,  who  goodhumoredly 
responded:  "Good  Heavens!  Who  said  that?"  The 
striking  similarity  of  the  Greek  and  German  speech  was 
pointed  out  by  the  reformer,  who  proved  it  by  such  examples 
as  the  cognate  words  vneP)  fisrd  and  trfo,  and  iiber,  mitt  and. 
sampt,  and  the  augment  as  seen  in  ytypa<pa  and  geschrieben.1 

Luther's  colloquial  German  is  very  racy,  with  marked 
dialectical  and  conversational  peculiarities.  He  evidently 
took  no  such  care  in  his  oral  as  he  did  in  his  written  lan- 
guage to  adopt  the  purest  idiom.  All  this,  as  well  as  the 
frequent  anacoluthon  and  solecism  found  in  the  original 
notes  is  smoothed  off  and  standardized,  so  to  speak,  in  the 
collection  of  Aurifaber.2 

It  is  perhaps  partly  because  of  the  lack  of  literary  form 
in  the  Table  Talk  that  we  get  such  a  perfect  picture  of 
Luther  in  it.  Here  we  see  him  in  all  the  simplicity  and 
naivete  of  his  large-hearted  German  nature.  "  God  has 
commanded  us  "  he  says,  "  that  we  should  be  simple,  open, 
and  true."  3  When  Kathe  was  ill  God  made  her  well 
again,  he  who  always  gives  what  is  best  for  his  children 
and  more  than  they  can  ask.4     How  fresh  is  this  picture: 

On  the  Sunday  after  St.  Michael's  day  he  was  happy  in  mind, 
and  joked  with  his  friends  and  with  me  (Mathesius),  and 
disparaged  his  own  learning:  "I  am  a  fool,"  said  he,  "and 
you  are  cunning  and  wiser  than  I  in  economy  and  politics. 
For  I  do  not  apply  myself  to  such  things,  but  only  to  the 
Church  and  to  getting  the  best  of  the  Devil.  I  believe,  how- 
ever, if  I  did  give  myself  to  other  sorts  of  business  I  could 
master  them.     But  as  I  attend  only  to  what  is  plain  to  view, 

1  Seidemann,  op.  cit,  p.  30.  2  See  Opitz,  Luthers  Sprache. 

3  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  48. 

*  Ibid.,  no.  28.     See  also  Preger,  op.  cit.,  no.  6. 


2ig]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  LITERATURE  93 

any  one  can  get  the  better  of  me,  until,  indeed,  I  see  he  is  a 
thief,  and  then  he  can't  cheat  me."  x 

Luther  is  as  frank  as  he  is  simple ;  there  is  nothing  in  his 
own  life,  no  opinion  of  men  or  books,2  no  recess  of  religious 
feeling  which  he  is  not  willing  to  talk  about.  His  Table 
Talk  outdoes  Rousseau  in  frankness,  though  it  must  always 
be  remembered  that  Luther  would  never  have  thought  of 
publishing  the  details  of  his  life  which  Rousseau  made  the 
materials  of  his  confessions.  One  passage,  which  also 
casts  an  interesting  sidelight  on  Luther's  marriage,  is  too 
good  not  to  be  quoted. 

He  spoke  as  follows  [in  1538]  of  his  own  marriage:  Had  I 
wished  to  marry  fourteen  years  ago  I  should  have  chosen  the 
wife  of  Basilius,  Anna  of  Schonfeld.  I  never  loved  my  own 
wife,  but  suspected  her  of  being  proud,  as  she  is;  but  God 
willed  that  I  should  show  mercy  to  the  poor  fugitive,  and  by 
his  grace  it  turned  out  that  my  marriage  was  most  happy.3 

This  must  not  be  taken  to  indicate  that  Luther  did  not  love 

1 "  Sontag  post  Michaelis  ex  animo  laetus  erat  et  jocaibatur  cum 
amicis  et  mecum  et  extenuebat  suam  eruditionem :  '  Ich  bin  alber,  saget 
er,  und  ir  seit  ein  schalck  und  gelerter  als  ich  in  rebus  oeconomicis  et 
politicis.  Denn  ich  nim  mich  der  sachen  nicht  an  und  hab  mit  der 
ecclesia  zu  schaffen,  und  muss  dem  Teuffel  auf  die  schantze  sehen. 
[See  Grimm,  Deutsches  Wbrterbuch,  vol.  viii,  p.  2164.]  Das  glaub  ioh, 
vvenn  ich  mich  auf  die  andern  hendeln  gebe,  ich  wolts  auch  mercken. 
Ich  glaub  eim  itzlichen,  drumb  kan  man  mich  wol  bescheissen ;  alsbaldt 
ich  mich  aber  fur  einem  fiirsehe,  der  nimpt  mir  nichts.' "  Kroker,  op. 
cit.,  no.  430. 

2  His  free  criticism  of  the  Bible  is  well  known.  See  e.  g.,  a  liberal 
opinion  of  Ezekiel  in  Preger,  op.  cit.,  no.  37. 

3  Khumer,  p.  381,  quoted  by  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  162,  note.  A 
confused  account  of  the  same  is  given  in  Bindseil.  op.  cit.,  ii,  338. 
Kostlin  (op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  762)  quotes  from  Bindseil,  and  hence  gets 
the  wrong  account,  giving  the  name  "Ave"  instead  of  "Anna." 


94  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [220 

his  wife  after  their  marriage;  the  Table  Talk  is  full  of  in- 
stances of  exemplary  conjugal  devotion  and  he  told  Die- 
trich he  would  not  change  Kathe  for  France  and  Venice.1 

Sometimes  this  simplicity  shows  itself  in  a  sort  of 
naivete  and  lack  of  the  critical  point  of  view. 

I  would  give  the  world  [he  says]  to  have  the  stories  of  the 
antediluvian  patriarchs  also,  so  that  we  could  see  how  they 
lived,  preached,  and  suffered.  ...  I  have  taught  and  suffered 
too,  but  only  fifteen,  or  twenty,  or  thirty  years ;  they  lived 
seven  or  eight  hundred  or  more,  and  how  they  must  have 
suffered ! 2 

His  way  of  regarding  the  French  mode  of  address  is  hardly 
more  sophisticated. 

The  question  was  mooted  whether  it  was  a  sin  to  curse  a 
Frenchman.  For  they  themselves  have  the  custom  of  greet- 
ing their  dearest  friends  with  a  curse,  as  "  Pest  and  pox  take 
you,  sir !"  Was  it,  then,  a  sin  when  the  mind  was  free  from 
hatred  ?  He  replied :  "  Our  speech  should  be  Yea  and  Nay, 
and  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  be  taken  in  vain.  But  it 
may  be  that  their  curses  are  more  innocent  than  many  a  good- 
morning  with  us."  3 

In  oral  discourse  the  Reformer  showed  a  marked  predi- 
lection for  the  sententious  style.  Apophthegm  and  anecdote 
abound  in  the  Colloquies.  Many  of  those  good  stories  cur- 
rent with  us,  whose  origin  is  lost  in  the  dimness  of  antiquity, 
appear  in  some  form  or  other.  The  anecdote  of  the  em- 
peror who  considered  himself  superior  by  his  official  posi- 
tion to  the  rules  of  grammar,  last  used  to  attack  President 

1  Dietrich,  Dec.  3,  1534.     Quoted  Kostlin,  op.  cit..  vol.  ii,  p.  497. 

2  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  82. 
8  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  85. 


221]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  LITERATURE  95 

Roosevelt's  spelling  reform,  is  related  by  Luther  and  attri- 
buted to  Sigismund.1  Another  story,  current  before  his 
time,  and  taken  from  him  by  Browning  is  that  of  the  two 
brothers  Date  and  Dabitur  vobis.2 

One  of  the  pleasantest  qualities  of  the  Table  Talk  is  the 
humor  which  is  constantly  appearing.  Unfortunately  most 
of  the  witticisms  have  been  eliminated  from  the  later  col- 
lections, with  their  serious  purpose  of  edification,  and  can 
only  be  read  in  the  sources.  Luther  was  naturally  of  a 
joyous  disposition,  "  ein  hurtiger  und  frohlicher  junger 
Gesell,"  as  Mathesius  calls  him.3  Much  of  the  exuberance 
of  his  high  spirits,  which  had  been  crushed  out  in  his  youth 
by  physical  and  mental  suffering  appeared  fully  in  his  later 
life. 

Joy  and  good  humor  with  reverence  and  moderation  is  the 
best  medicine  for  a  young  man — yea,  for  all  men.  I,  who 
have  passed  my  life  with  mourning  and  a  sad  face,  now  seek 
and  accept  joy  wherever  I  can  find  it.4 

His  jokes  were  never  "practical"  or  rough,  but  they  were 
often  personal,  as  when  he  compares  Pommer's  preaching  to 
an  underdone  meal.5  He  loved  to  poke  good-humored 
fun  at  Kathe,  who  took  it  well  and  showed  by  her 
quick  wit  in  repartee  she  did  not  get  the  worst  of  it.6  Her 
loquacity,  real  or  imagined,  was  the  subject  of  occasional 

1  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  154. 

2  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  452.     Browning:  "The  Twins." 

3  E.  Rolffs :  "  Luther's  Humor  ein  Stuck  seiner  Religion,"  in  Preus. 
Jahrb.,  1904,  vol.  115,  pp.  468-488.  See  p.  468  for  this.  The  author 
writes  charmingly  but  misses  the  great  source  of  Luther's  humor  in 
quoting  from  his  letters  only.     He  finds  Luther's  humor  "  idyllic." 

4  Ibid.,  p.  487. 

5  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  99. 

6  See  supra,  p.  72.  and  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  332. 


96  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [222 

jest;  one  day  Luther  recommended  her  to  an  Englishman 
who  wanted  to  learn  German  as  his  tutor  because  "  she  is 
so  copiously  eloquent  that  she  beats  me  all  to  pieces."  * 
Luther  humorously  recognizes  that  she  is  head  of  the  house- 
hold, comparing  her  to  Moses  and  himself  to  Aaron.2 

Jokes  on  religious  subjects  go  rather  further  than  those 
of  a  thoroughly  correct  reformer  should.  In  one  passage 
Luther  facetiously  compares  three  famous  preachers  of  his 
day  to  the  Trinity :  "  They  are  one  essence  and  three  per- 
sons, Pomer  the  Father,  Crodel  the  Son,  and  Rorer  the 
Holy  Ghost."  3 

This  of  course  is  with  us  a  matter  of  taste,  and  it  is  just 
in  matters  of  taste  that  Luther  shows  himself  the  child  not 
only  of  his  age  but  of  his  class.  Luther  spoke  out  whether 
in  describing  the  morals  of  the  Italians,4  or  his  own  ail- 
ments 5  or  in  giving  advice  to  one  tempted.6  He  spoke  out 
too,  in  giving  his  opinions  of  his  enemies  and  those  of  the 
Gospel  in  language  which  has  never  been  surpassed  and 
rarely  equalled  for  invective  force.7  These  defects  have 
been  so  elaborately  apologized  for  by  editor  and  translator 
that  they  have  perhaps  attained  undue  prominence.  What- 
ever he  was  Luther  was  not  vicious,  and  we  never  see  that 
polisonncrie  which  is  so  plain  in  Erasmus,  for  example. 
We  do  not  find  Luther  writing  enthusiastically  to  a  friend 

1  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  156. 

2  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  53.  An  example  of  the  same  kind  given  by 
Rolffs  from  a  letter  addressed  to  "Meiner  herzlieben  Hausfrauen  Kath- 
erin  Lutherin  Doctorin  Zulsdorferin  Saumarkterin  und  was  sie  mehr 
sein  kann."     Rolffs,  loc.  cit.,  p.  483. 

3  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  94. 

4  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  53. 

5  With  a  satire  on  the  physician.     Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  139. 
a  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  737?- 

7  See  J.  H.  Robinson:  "The  Study  of  the  Lutheran  Revolt,"  in 
American  Hist.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1903. 


223]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  LITERATURE  07 

about  the  kisses  he  has  enjoyed  *  or  wittily  toying  with  the 
vicious  propensities  of  mankind  in  the  style  of  the  Praise 
of  Folly.  Luther  was  considered  remarkably  pure  in  his 
own  age.  Mathesius  relates  that  he  never  heard  from  him 
one  shameful  word,2  a  judgment  in  which  any  fair-minded 
reader  will  concur;  Luther  was  frank,  but  he  was  not 
prurient. 

As  to  invective,  Luther  only  gave  as  good  as  he  got.  He 
speaks  sometimes  of  the  revolting  slanders  circulated 
against  him.3  Sometimes  he  showed  an  admirable,  as  well 
as  a  wise,  self-restraint  in  this  respect,  as  when,  after  read- 
ing the  scurrilous  attack  of  Cochlaeus  he  decided  not  to 
answer  it.  "  I  shall  not  answer  Cochlaeus'  book  against 
me,  and  he  will  then  be  much  angrier  than  if  I  did,  for  he 
will  not  get  the  honor  he  thought."  4 

1 F.  M.  Nichols,  Epistles  of  Erasmus,  p.  203.  To  us,  perhaps, 
Erasmus  seems  the  less  excusable;  to  the  eighteenth  century  Luther 
would  have  been  the  more  unpleasing.     Cf.  Voltaire's  Lettres  d  son 

Altesse  le  Prince  de sur  Rabelais.     His  strictures  are  certainly 

satirical,  hut  we  get  a  true  note  when  he  says  "  Swift  is  the  Rabelais 
of  gentlemen,"  thereby  implying  that  the  indecency  of  the  latter  (who 
resembled,  though  he  far  outdid,  Luther  in  this  respect)  was  not  quite 
polished  enough  for  good  society. 

2  Mathesius,  Luther  Histories,  1570,  p.  136a,  quoted  by  Losche,  Ana- 
lecta,  p.  2. 

3  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no.  1738,  etc. 

4  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  147.  The  book  was :  Sieben  kopffe  Mar- 
tin Luthers  von  acht  hohen  sachen  des  Christlichen  glaubens  durch 
Doct.  Jo.  Cochleum,  1529.  In  another  place  (Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i, 
p.  438  et  seq.)  we  have  an  account  which  seems  more  doubtful.  It 
makes  Luther  contradict  himself  in  consecutive  sentences,  due  to  the 
fact  that  Lauterbach  here,  as  often,  blended  two  accounts  of  the  same 
thing.  "  I  shall  mortify  Cochlaeus  by  silence  and  conquer  him  by  con- 
tempt, for  he  is  a  mere  fool,  worth  nothing  in  either  scripture  or  dia- 
lectic; it  would  be  a  shame  if  I  should  answer  his  loose  lies.  .  .  .  The 
book  stinks;  I  am  waiting  to  answer  it  until  I  can  get  time  to  answer 
the  whole  at  once,  so  that  I  can  do  it  with  new,  fresh  wrath.  He 
bores  me  as  with  a  gimlet,  but  he  will  make  a  bunghole  [sc.  out  of 
which  my  wrath  shall  flow]." 


98  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [224 

It  is  hardly  fair  to  judge  a  man  by  his  confidential  and 
casual  utterances.  What  Luther  meant  only  for  his  friends' 
ears  was  bruited  over  Christendom  as  loudly  as  his  deliber- 
ate opinions,  meant  for  the  world.  He  was  a  man  of 
frank,  open  nature,  much  subject  to  the  impression  of  the 
moment,  often  self-contradictory,  careless  of  his  own  repu- 
tation. He  never  paused  to  weigh  his  conversation  in  a 
company  as  sympathetic  and  indulgent  as  he  was  confiden- 
tial.1 It  is  not  fair  to  say,  with  a  French  writer,2  that 
Luther  talked  along  after  dinner  "  dans  vine  demi-ivresse  " 
but  we  can  readily  understand  that  the  influences  of  diges- 
tion and  malt  liquor  were  not  always  conducive  to  an  austere 
observance  of  the  proprieties.  On  the  whole,  if  we  judge 
him  by  his  words,  making  allowance,  as  we  must,  for  the 
age  he  lived  in,  and  the  circumstances  of  his  education, 
Luther  offers  very  little  indeed  whereby  he  can  be  con- 
demned.3 

1 "  No  wonder  some  impertinent  things  might  intermix  themselves 
liberius  dicta  to  refresh  and  recreate  the  company."    Supra,  p.  79- 

2  Brunet,  Propos  de  Table,  Int.  On  his  drinking,  see  Kostlin,  op.  cit., 
vol.  ii,  p.  506.     It  appears  that  he  took  too  much  once. 

3  Cf.  Michelet  quoted  by  Brunet,  op.  cit.,  Introduction.  Also  Walch, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  xxii,  Einl.,  p.  33,  quoting  Selneccer's  sententious  remark 
"  that  we  should  not  let  a  few  weeds  spoil  the  whole  garden  for  us." 


CHAPTER  IX 
The  Table  Talk  in  History 

The  various  sources  and  collections  of  Tischreden  are  not 
only  literary  monuments  but  historical  documents,  and  in 
this  chapter  we  shall  treat  them  as  such,  showing-  first  what 
use  has  been  made  of  them  by  historians,  then  discussing 
their  authenticity  and  reliability,  and  finally  pointing  out  by 
a  few  specimens  the  kind  of  value  they  possess  for  the  stu- 
dent of  the  Protestant  Revolt. 

Luther's  enemies  have  always  found  in  the  Table  Talk  a 
trenchant  weapon  for  attacking  his  character  and  doctrines. 
Even  in  his  writings  Luther  is  neither  consistent  nor  tem- 
perate, much  more  in  his  private  conversation  is  he  careless 
and  unguarded.  By  taking  every  thoughtless  remark  to  a 
friend  literally  and  with  no  attention  to  the  context,  the 
occasion  on  which  it  was  uttered,  and  the  cause  which 
evoked  it,  it  is  easy  enough  to  entangle  Luther  in  a  hope- 
less mass  of  contradictions  and  to  asperse  his  character. 
This  was  done  by  Catholics  and  humanists  as  soon  as  the 
Tischreden  were  published,  and  subsequently  has  been  un- 
dertaken more  thoroughly  by  more  scientific  though  equally 
hostile  historians.1 

Dollinger  gives  us  a  beautiful  anthology  of  all  the  least 
considered    and    most    infelicitous    of    Luther's    sayings, 

1"The  gnat-like  tribe  of  Janssenists,"  as  Losche  (Analecta,Ein\.init.) 
calls  them,  not  without  animus.  For  the  humanist  attack,  see  Walch, 
op.  cit..  vol.  xxii,  p.  20. 

225]  99 


roo  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [226 

whether  taken  from  his  works  or  from  the  Table  Talk. 
If,  in  a  moment  of  despondency,  Luther  says  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  only  seems  to  make  men  worse,  and  that  the 
converts  to  the  new  church  abuse  their  liberty  and  commit 
all  manner  of  sin,  that  is  taken  as  a  serious  effort  to  sum  up 
the  effect  of  the  reformed  teaching  and  as  a  damning  indict- 
ment against  it.1  "  It  is  a  wonderful  thing,"  says  Luther 
again,  "  and  a  sad  one  {plena  offendiculo)  that  as  the  Gos- 
pel flourishes  the  world  becomes  ever  worse,  for  all  turn 
spiritual  liberty  into  license.  For  the  reign  of  Satan  and 
the  Pope  suits  this  world  ...  in  truth,  it  degenerates  un- 
der the  doctrine  of  grace."  2  This  of  course  is  a  full  proof, 
to  the  enemies  of  Protestantism,  that  the  Revolt  had  a  bad 
moral  effect.  The  same  is  shown  still  more  clearly  in  Lu- 
ther's impatient  denunciation  of  the  Protestant  clergy  as 
full  of  "  fanle,  schadliche,  schandliche,  Heischliche  Frei- 
heit."  8 

Dollinger  is  content  with  quoting  Luther's  sayings 
against  himself,  without  putting  a  strained  construction  on 
them.  The  recently  published  book  of  Father  Denifle  puts 
an  unnatural  meaning  on  much  that  he  said  and  thus  attacks 
Luther's  life  and  character  with  such  perverse  erudition  and 
such  an  obvious  lack  of  impartiality  that  it  appears  more 
like  the  pamphlet  of  a  violent  contemporary  than  a  serious 
history.  One  example  will  suffice :  crimine  ab  uno  disce 
omnes.  The  Reformer's  words  "  misceor  feminis  "  which 
from  the  context  obviously  mean  nothing  else  than  that  the 
reformer  no  more  lives  in  monastic  retirement,  but  mixes 

1  Dollinger,  Die  Reformation,  ihre  inncre  Entwickelung,  1853-4,  vol. 
'.  P-  295-     Quoting  Walch,  op.  cit.,  vol.  xvi,  p.  2013. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  320,  quoting  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  172. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  306,  quoting  from  the  Tischreden. 


227]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  HISTORY  10; 

with  society,  including  that  of  women,  are  taken  as  a  con- 
fession of  habitual  immorality.1 

Protestant  historians  have  used  the  Table  Talk  in  a  fairer 
and  more  amiable  way,  though  it  is  true  that  they  have 
occasionally  been  led  by  admiration  of  their  hero  to 
explain  away  what  might  damage  his  character.  This  has 
been  done  mainly  by  the  editors ;  the  historians  proper  have 
simply  ignored  the  less  admirable  part  of  the  Table  Talk, 
or  excused  it  all  in  a  few  general  terms,  while  reserving 
their  specific  quotations  for  those  sayings  which  show  the 
brighter  side  of  Luther's  character.  The  editors,  however, 
had  to  treat  each  saying  by  itself,  and  many  of  them  have 
taken  liberties  with  the  text  in  the  interests  of  piety.  The 
first  editor,  Aurifaber,  suppressed  much  he  thought  un- 
edifying,  as  we  can  see  by  comparing  him  with  his  sources, 
and  the  last  editor,  Kroker,  has  shown  the  same  tendency 
in  supporting  a  reading  in  Mathesius's  Luther  Histories, 
recorded  so  many  years  later,  against  one  taken  on  the  spot, 
all  in  the  interest  of  Luther's  reputation.2 

Of  all  the  historians  whom  I  have  consulted  3  Kostlin 
has  made  the  best  use  of  the  Table  Talk.  He  used  all  the 
sources  known  at  the  time  he  wrote  (t.  e.  all  but  the  Mathe- 
sian  collection,  recently  edited  by  Kroker)  and  he  used 
them  almost  exhaustively.  It  is  literally  true  that  nearly 
every  page  of  his  biography  has  some  reference  to  the 
Table  Talk,  and  after  comparing  a  large  number  of  his 

1 H.  P.  Denifle,  Luther  utid  Lutherthum,  2  vols.,  1904,  1905.  This 
expression,  taken  from  one  of  Luther's  letters,  is  found  on  page  283  of 
vol.  i.     Many  references  are  taken  from  the  Tischreden. 

2  In  the  passage  about  Luther's  "  tres  malos  canes,"  quoted  supra, 
p.  49,  note  3. 

3  E.  g.,  Hausrath,  Luther s  Leben  (last  ed.,  1905).  Berger,  Martin 
Luther  in  kulturgeschichtliche  Darstellung,  1895.  Kolde,  Martin  Luther. 
1884,  !893.     Lindsay,  Luther  and  the  German  Reformation,  1900. 


102  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [228 

references  with  the  originals,  I  can  only  testify  my  admir- 
ation for  his  thoroughness  and  fairness.1 

The  unprincipled  use  of  the  Tischreden  by  Luther's 
enemies  led  to  an  early  attempt  on  the  part  of  those  of  his 
friends  whose  zeal  outran  their  judgment,  to  deny  their 
genuineness  and  to  impute  them  to  Catholic  forgers.2  The 
attempt  was  so  utterly  preposterous  that  it  was  soon  aban- 
doned, and  indeed  is  hardly  worth  mentioning.  The  au- 
thenticity of  the  Table  Talk  (making  allowance  for  very 
slight  editorial  changes)  is  as  indisputable  as  that  of  the 
Address  to  the  Christian  Nobility. 

Another  set  of  defenders  admitting  the  authenticity  of 
the  work,  have  expressed  their  regret  that  it  should  ever 
have  been  published,  and  even  suggested  that  the  extant 
editions  be  suppressed — a  proposal  as  impractical  as  in- 
judicious.3 If  their  real  defence,  which,  as  has  been  stated, 
lies  in  a  comprehension  of  the  conditions  under  which  they 
were  spoken,  be  once  understood  and  fairly  applied,  no 
partisan  friend  of  Luther  (needless  to  say  no  impartial  his- 
torian) will  regret  their  publication. 

A  very  different  question  from  the  genuineness  of  the  Table 
Talk  is  the  question  of  its  reliability.  In  using  this  source 
the  historian  should  give  to  statements  of  fact  only  such 
weight  as  can  be  given  to  any  oral  testimony.  When  the 
difference  between  the  date  of  the  fact  recounted,  and  the 

1  See  Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  774,  and  vol.  ii,  p.  487  et  seq. 

2  This  was  the  object  of  a  little  work  by  Moller  and  Strickner,  De 
auctoritate  libri  scripti  sub  titulo  Colloquiorum  Mensalium  Lutheri,  1693. 
Walch  (op.  cit.,  vol.  xxii,  Einl.,  p.  22  et  seq.)  quotes  opinions  of  the 
same  kind,  summing  up  strongly  in  favor  of  the  genuineness.  Since  his 
work,  1743,  no  editor  has  thought  it  necessary  to  take  up  the  question. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  25.  Walch  defends  his  own  edition  by  saying  it  is  better  to 
have  a  good  than  a  bad  one. 


229]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  HISTORY  I0^ 

date  of  the  saying  in  which  it  is  recorded  can  be  ascer- 
tained, the  probable  degree  of  accuracy  can  be  calculated. 
Obviously  Luther's  story  of  the  Diet  of  Worms,  told  by 
him  twenty  years  after  it  happened,  is  worth  less  than  the 
account  of  his  controversy  with  the  Swiss,  taken  down 
within  a  few  weeks  of  its  occurrence. 

The  date  can  only  be  told  as  a  rule,  in  the  sources,  and 
so  it  is  these  sources  only,  and  not  the  collections,  that  must 
be  used  by  the  historian.  Another  reason  for  using  them 
is  that  they  contain  the  best  text  of  the  Table  Talk.  Again 
it  is  plain  that  the  facts  are  reliable  in  proportion  as  they 
came  within  the  personal  observation  of  Luther  and  his 
guests.  The  not  infrequent  accounts  of  the  evolutions  of 
the  Turkish  army,  and  of  the  counter  moves  of  Ferdinand 
and  the  German  Princes,  are  worth  no  more  than  pure  fic- 
tion as  regards  the  facts  they  purport  to  record.  They  are 
worth  something,  however,  as  indicating  the  popular  anx- 
iety caused  by  the  Turks  in  Germany  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  the  popular  opinion  that  Ferdinand  used  these 
terrors  to  wring  armies  and  supplies  from  the  German 
States.1 

This  observation  leads  us  to  remark  that  it  is  not  as  a  re- 
pertory of  dates  and  figures,  or  as  a  chronicle  of  important 
historical  events,  that  the  Table  Talk  has  its  value.  This 
lies  rather  in  the  brilliant  picture  it  gives  of  the  opinions, 
the  motives,  the  reading,  the  daily  life  and  personal  attitude 
of  the  greatest  German  of  his  age,  and  in  their  portrayal  of 
contemporary  social  life  and  habit.2 

A  good  example  of  the  value  of  the  Tischreden  is  seen 
in  the  new  light  cast,  by  the  recently  published  Mathesian 

1Cf.  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  507.     Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  3  and  126. 

2  Making  due  allowance  for  the  context  and  spirit  of  the  documents. 


104  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [230 

Collection,  on  the  vexed  question  of  Luther's  attitude  to 
Philip  of  Hesse's  bigamy.  Here  we  get  a  few  new  facts, 
as  for  example  that  the  Landgrave  visited  Weimar  to  dis- 
cuss the  project  with  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  for  which 
the  Tischreden  are  the  only  authority.1  The  visit  must 
have  taken  place  in  April,  1534,  and  the  conversation  re- 
ported by  Mathesius  who  relates  it,  took  place  about  June 
I,  1540,  so  that  it  is  quite  possible  that  there  may  be  a  mis- 
take in  Luther's  memory.  More  valuable,  however,  than 
a  few  doubtful  facts  of  this  nature,  is  the  light  cast  on 
Luther's  whole  attitude  by  his  continual  reference  to  the  un- 
fortunate affair.  We  can  see  how  perplexed  he  is  about  it, 
and  what  pressure  must  have  been  brought  to  bear  to  get 
him  to  accede  to  the  second  marriage.  We  regret  to  note, 
at  the  same  time,  that  he  seems  more  worried  by  the  use 
the  "  Papists  "  make  of  the  affair  than  by  its  doubtful  mor- 
ality. Fouchet's  "  worse  than  a  crime,  a  blunder  "  is  paral- 
leled by  his  "  not  only  a  sin  but  a  scandal."  2  His  chief 
defence  of  his  attitude  is  by  comparison  with  the  worse 
morality  of  the  Papists.  He  is  firmly  convinced  that  all 
would  have  been  well  if  the  matter  could  have  been  kept 
quiet  as  he  advised.3 

Luther's  characterization  of  his  contemporaries  is  always 
interesting  to  us,  not  as  a  final  valuation,  but  as  evidence 
of  Luther's  relations  with  them.     His  opinion  of  the  rela- 

1  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  181,  note  11. 

2  "  Si  Macedo  peccavit,  peccatum  est  et  scandalum"  Kroker,  op.  cit., 
no.  241. 

3  See  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  nos.  181,  188,  233,  241,  245,  etc.  The  most  re- 
cent monograph  on  the  subject,  W.  W.  Rockwell's  Die  Doppelehe  des 
Landgrafen  Philipp  v.  Hessen,  1904,  quotes  Kroker's  Tischreden  in  this 
connection  as  a  source.  He  corrects  many  former  misconceptions  and 
shows  that  at  the  Eisenach  meeting  (July,  1540,  shortly  after  the  say- 
ing above  quoted  had  been  recorded)  Luther  advised  "  a  good  strong 
lie." 


231]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  HISTORY  i0$ 

tive  merits  of  himself  and  three  other  leaders  is  seen  in  his 
calling  Melanchthon  "Deeds  and  words,"  Erasmus  "Words 
without  deeds,"  himself  "  Deeds  without  words  "  and  Carl- 
stadt  "  Neither  deeds  nor  words."  1  Erasmus  always  ex- 
cites his  wrath,  being  (if  we  may  borrow  a  phrase  from 
Milton)  one  of  those  lukewarm  persons  "  who  give  God 
himself  the  vomit." 

I  condoned  all  his  boasts,  [says  Luther  in  one  place,]  but  I  could 
not  stand  his  catechism,  because  he  teaches  nothing  certain  in 
it,  but  tries  to  make  the  youthful  reader  doubtful.  It  was  the 
Roman  curia  and  Epicurus  who  showed  him  the  way.  In 
Germany  we  have  a  regular  fraternity  of  Epicureans,  Crotus, 
Mutianus  and  Justus  Menius.2 

Less  than  anything  else  Luther  was  able  to  understand  or 
sympathize  with  the  advocate  of  half-way  measures.  Of 
Bucer  he  has  a  poor  opinion; 

That  little  wretch  (Leckerlein)  has  no  credit  with  me.  I 
don't  trust  him,  for  he  has  too  often  betrayed  me.  He  showed 
himself  up  badly  at  Regensburg,  when  he  wanted  to  be  a  medi- 
ator between  me  and  the  Pope,  and  said :  "  It  is  too  bad  that 
there  should  be  so  much  trouble  for  the  sake  of  two  or  three 
little  articles  1"  3 

Hardly  less  interesting  than  his  opinion  of  his  contem- 
poraries is  his  opinion  of  men  of  former  generations.  As 
is  well  known  his  estimation  of  Aristotle  was  small,  a  na- 
tural reaction  against  the  schoolmen. 

1  For  this  and  a  number  of  other  characterizations,  see  Bindseil,  op. 
cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  266-306. 

2  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  48.  For  another  of  the  same  tenor,  see 
Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  569. 

3  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  543.  For  Agricola,  see  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p. 
70.     For  Oecolampadius,  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  468. 


io6  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [232 

Aristotle  is  nothing  but  Epicurus.  He  does  not  believe  that 
God  cares  for  the  world,  or  if  he  does,  he  thinks  that  God 
drowses  along  like  a  sleepy  maid  rocking  a  baby.  Cicero  was 
much  better;  in  my  opinion  he  got  all  that  was  best  in  the 
Greeks.1 

Terence  was  his  favorite  author  among  the  heathen  and 
in  the  following  opinion  of  him  we  see  a  venerable  sanction 
for  the  joke  on  the  mother-in-law,  which  still  makes  so 
large  a  part  of  current  humor : 

The  Hecyra  is  a  fine  comedy,  the  best  in  Terence,  but  because 
it  has  no  action  it  does  not  please  the  common  student.  But  it 
is  full  of  grave  sententious  sayings,  useful  for  common  life, 
such  as :  "All  mothers-in-law  hate  their  daughters-in-law."  2 

The  Translation  of  the  Bible  naturally  occupies  much  of 
his  thought.  In  one  place  he  lays  down  a  sensible  rule  of 
translation  which  partly  explains  the  success  of  his  own : 

It  is  not  sufficient  (in  translation)  to  know  the  grammar  and 
observe  the  sense  of  the  words,  but  knowledge  of  the  subject 
treated  is  essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  words. 
Lawyers  do  not  understand  the  law  except  by  practice,  and 
no  one  can  understand  Virgil's  Eclogues  without  knowing 
something  of  the  subject.  If  the  reader  knows  whether  the 
eclogue  is  about  Augustus  or  Caesar,  he  can  easily  apply  the 
words.     So  in  the  Bible  I  keep  to  the  sense.3 

1  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  525. 

2  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  485.  His  allusions  to  Terence  are  quite  fre- 
quent. In  one  place  (if  my  memory  serves  me)  he  said  he  read  a 
little  of  that  author  every  day. 

3  Ibid.,  no.  145.  Further  examples  of  the  pains  the  Bible  cost  him 
and  his  estimate  of  previous  translations  are  found  in  ibid.,  nos.  470, 
473.  See  also  Dietrich,  p.  137,  quoted  by  Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  86, 
note  2,  for  his  opinion  of  the  commentators  on  the  Bible. 


233]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  HISTORY  lQj 

Some  will  contend  that  he  carried  this  principle  too  far 
when  he  inserted  a  word  in  Romans  which  Paul  had  not 
used. 

He  often  speaks  of  the  part  he  took  in  the  great 
historic  events  of  Worms  and  Augsburg,  and  though 
his  memory  may  be  at  fault  as  to  details,  his  allusions  are 
always  worth  much  as  illustrations  of  his  later  attitude. 
At  one  time  he  was  inclined  to  make  the  Diet  of  Augsburg 
of  1518  the  turning-point  of  his  life.  "  Up  to  that  time  I 
knew  too  little  of  the  errors  of  the  Papacy."  Possibly  he 
exaggerated  the  amount  of  pressure  brought  to  bear  on 
him  to  retract.1 

In  like  manner  his  memory  of  Worms  is  doubtless  some- 
what at  fault,  but  his  account  of  it  is  interesting  as  show- 
ing his  later,  more  advanced  attitude.  As  he  remembered 
it  he  said : 

Most  gracious  Lord  Emperor :  Some  of  my  books  are  disputa- 
tions (Zanckbiicher),  some  didactic.  The  didactic  and  the 
word  of  God  I  will  not  recant,  but  if  I  have  been  too  vehe- 
ment against  any  one  in  disputation,  or  have  said  too  much,  I 
will  let  it  be  shown  me  if  you  give  me  time  for  reflection. 

This,  of  course,  contradicts  the  usual  statement  that  he 
apologized  for  the  invective  and  asked  for  time  on  the 
other.2 

For  the  daily  course  of  his  private  life  the  Table  Talk 
is  the  best  source  we  have.     Even  Luther's  letters,  frank, 

1  Seidemann,  pp.  93-97.  The  Diet  of  1518  is  of  course  meant.  He 
states  that  he  was  there  three  days  without  a  safe-conduct.  He  arrived 
just  at  the  close  of  the  session.  Cambridge  Modern  History,  vol.  ii, 
P-  133. 

2  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  438-440.  The  passage  cannot  be  dated 
with  certainty.  Of  the  same  kind  of  reminiscence  as  the  above  is  his 
account  of  his  vow  to  be  a  monk.     Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  187  et  seq. 


108  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  [234 

charming,  intimate  as  they  are,  do  not  give  us  such  a  pic- 
ture of  him  as  does  this  record  of  his  conversations.  For 
some  years  such  as  1538,  we  can  tell  just  what  he  was 
thinking  and  doing  on  almost  every  day.  Out  of  a  wealth 
of  material  sufficient  to  construct  a  biography,  we  shall 
select  a  few  specimens. 

Luther's  ill-health  is  a  well-known  fact,  but  we  do  not 
realize  how  constant  and  wearing  it  was  until  we  read  the 
Table  Talk,  where  it  is  often  alluded  to,  though  never  in 
anything  but  a  brave  and  manly  way.  He  suffered  hardly 
less  from  his  ailments  than  from  the  barbarous  remedies 
of  the  time.  Vertigo  troubled  him,  for  which  he  found 
help  in  a  little  food,  remarking  that  butter  was  a  good 
thing.1  A  more  serious  complaint  was  the  ulceration  of  his 
body;  he  once  compared  his  sores  to  the  stars  in  the  sky, 
saying  that  there  were  over  two  hundred  of  them.2  At 
another  time  he  wished  he  had  died  at  Schmalkald,  where 
he  was  tortured  by  the  stone.  His  observation  that  medi- 
cine was  a  good  thing  but  the  doctors  poor,  was  fully  justi- 
fied by  the  treatment  he  received  on  this  occasion.8 

His  superstition,  too,  is  constantly  appearing.  He  had 
the  tendency  (common  to  the  unscientific  mind)  of  attribu- 
ting what  he  could  not  explain  to  supernatural  causes. 
Even  a  thunderstorm  transcends  natural  phenomena.  He 
said  of  one :  "  It  is  simply  satanic.  I  believe  the  devils 
wanted  to  have  a  dispute  and  that  some  angel  interposed 
this  x^h-o.  and  so  tore  their  propositions  up."  Sometimes 
his  credulity  takes  an  active  form  which  shocks  our  modern 

1  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  95. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  308. 

3  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  24.  See  also  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  747.  For 
his  illness  in  Italy,  see  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  105.  His  best  cure,  he 
said,  was  John  iii.  16.  Dietrich,  p.  119,  quoted  Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii, 
P-  SOS- 


235]  THE  TABLE  TALK  IN  HISTORY  IOo, 

humanity.  He  advised,  for  example,  that  a  poor  girl  who 
was  said  to  shed  tears  of  blood  in  the  presence  of  another 
woman  be  tortured  as  a  witch.1  His  advice  as  to  how  to 
frustrate  the  machinations  of  the  spirits  who  stole  the  milk 
is  more  disgusting,  though  less  cruel.2  Sometimes  he  took 
a  rational  view  as  when  he  said  the  stars  did  not  influence 
events.8 

Luther's  hospitality  is  strikingly  portrayed  in  the  Table 
Talk.  In  fact  he  must  have  had  many  guests  all  the  time, 
or  else  he  could  not  have  had  so  many  records  made  of  his 
conversation  by  different  persons.  Not  only  did  he  have 
his  friends  with  him  for  long  periods  together,  but  many 
chance  visitors  put  up  at  his  house.  Such  was  the  Swiss 
Superintendent  whom  Luther  received  on  April  15,  1538. 
We  have  an  agreeable  evidence  of  his  courtesy  on  this  oc- 
casion in  the  delicacy  with  which  he  speaks  of  his  relations 
with  the  Swiss  Reformers.4 

We  have  already  spoken  of  his  carelessness  in  temporal 
affairs  and  the  anxiety  it  caused  his  good  wife,  but  the  fre- 
quency of  its  reappearance  in  the  Table  Talk  will  perhaps 
justify  us  in  adducing  another  example.  Kathe  com- 
plained that  she  had  only  three  bottles  of  beer  left,  to  which 
he  complacently  replied : 

God  can  easily  make  them  four.  If  he  were  not  our  provider, 
we  should  soon  be  done  for.  I  have  an  extraordinary  way  of 
living,  spending  more  than  I  get.  For  I  must  spend  more 
than   500  florins 5   a  year   in   the  kitchen,   without  counting 

1  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  117.  "Let  such  be  tortured";  perhaps  he 
means  the  other  woman,  or  both. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  121.  3  Ibid.,  p.  47. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  62.  See  also  Kolde,  Analecta  Lutherana,  p.  378,  on  the  mis- 
cellanea turba  of  old  and  young  in  Luther's  house. 

5  /.  e.,  the  amount  of  his  income,  200  florins  besides  the  300  he  got 
from  the  elector. 


IIO  LUTHER'S  TABLE  TALK  ^6 

clothes  and  extras.  If  I  had  a  smaller  house  I  would  keep 
away  the  multitude  and  be  as  private  as  I  could.  But  God  is 
the  provider  for  simple  folk."  1 

On  his  relations  with  his  wife  and  children  much  may  be 
gathered  from  the  Table  Talk,  but  the  subject  is  already 
hackneyed.  He  may  joke  his  wife  about  her  womanly 
readiness  in  speech,2  or  pun  on  her  name,  calling  her  his 
Cathena,  or  Chain,  but  we  feel  that  it  is  all  good-humored 
and  affectionate.  As  we  have  seen  Kathe  was  not  always 
on  the  best  terms  with  the  students,  and  they  undoubtedly 
retaliated  for  her  jealousy  by  the  depreciatory  tone  in  which 
they  refer  to  her.3 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  much  our  appreciation  of 
the  comparative  worth  of  the  different  sayings  has  changed 
from  that  of  Luther's  contemporaries.  To  the  first  editors 
those  sayings  were  most  valuable  which  gave  an  authorita- 
tive exposition  of  some  knotty  point  in  theology,  or  an 
exegesis  of  some  obscure  text  in  the  Bible.  To  us  these 
once  vital  questions  have  sunk  into  comparative  neglect,  and 
what  Luther  may  have  thought  of  the  Judgment  Day,4  or 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  c  is  no  longer  decisive,  hardly  interest- 
ing. To  all  who  know  Luther,  however  (and  who  does 
not?),  those  stories  and  jokes,  the  familiar  conversations 
which  reveal  so  much  of  the  man's  heart  and  life,  will  have 
an  ever  fresh  and  abiding  interest. 

1  Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  199. 

2  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no.  in  et  seq. 

3  See  supra,  ch.  ii  and  iii.  Cf.  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  no.  120. 
Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  496. 

4  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  no.  122. 
6  Ibid.,  no.  218. 


APPENDIX 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

This  bibliography  is  divided  into  six  parts.  The  first 
is  a  catalogue  of  the  MSS.  and  editions  of  the  sources.  The 
second  is  a  similar  catalogue  of  the  collections,  in  the  vari- 
ous MSS.  and  editions.  The  third  part  gives  a  table  show- 
ing the  relations  of  the  various  MSS.,  how  the  notebooks 
were  gradually  combined  into  the  later  collections.  Part 
four  is  a  list  of  all  the  German  and  Latin  printed  editions, 
both  collections  and  sources.  The  fifth  part  is  a  catalogue 
of  the  English  and  French  translations.  The  sixth  and 
last  section  is  a  review  of  additional  explanatory  material 
bearing  on  the  subject.  My  account  of  this  last  category 
is  critical  as  well  as  descriptive;  the  other  classes  of  ma- 
terial have  been  so  fully  treated  in  the  text  as  to  render 
further  criticism  unnecessary.1 

PART  I.     THE  SOURCES 

Cordatus 

i.  Tagebuch  iiber  Martin  Lather,  gefiihret  von  Conrad 
Cordatus.  MS.  found  by  Dr.  H.  Wrampelmeyer  in  the 
Church  Library  at  Zellerfeld.  It  contains  a  variety  of  ma- 
terial besides  Tischreden.     At  one  time  Wrampelmeyer  be- 

XI  have  seen  none  of  the  MSS.  myself;  my  account  is,  therefore, 
taken  from  the  printed  sources  indicated  in  the  notes. 

237]  in 


112  APPENDIX  [238 

lieved  it  to  have  been  in  the  handwriting  of  Cordatus,  but 
later  found  that  it  was  not.1 

2.  Die  Herliche  Schone  und  Liebliche  Apophtegmata 
des  Hochgelaerhtens  Docto.  Martini.  Lutheri,  zusammen 
geschrieben  Per  Dominum  Doctorem  Conradum  Cordatum. 
"  Haec  varia  et  utillissima  dicta  sanctissimi  viri  Doctoris 
Martini  Lutheri  scribebat  sibi  Sebastian.  Redlich  Ber- 
noensis,  M.  D.,  LXVI."  2 

Dietrich 

3.  Collecta  ex  Colloquiis  habitis  cum  D.  Martino  Luthero 
in  mensa  per  annos  sex,  quibus  cum  eo  Wittenberge  com- 
munitus  sum  usus.  29,  30,  31,  32,  34,  35.  MS.  Cent.  V. 
append,  no.  75,  Niirnberg.3  The  numbers  29,  30,  etc.,  re- 
fer to  the  years  1529,  etc. 

4.  Rapsodiae  et  dicta  quaedam  ex  ore  Doctoris  Martini 
Lutheri  in  familiaribus  colloquiis  annotata  .  .  .  Valen- 
tinus  Bavarus  suo  labore  et  manu  propria  in  hunc  librum 
transcribendo  comparavit.  1548.  MS.  in  the  Royal  Li- 
brary of  Gotha.4 

5.  Colloquia  Lutheri  conscripta  a  quibusdam  et  alia  quae- 
dam addita  sunt.  Thesaurus  Theologiae  1543.  Christo- 
pherus  Obenander,  Studio  Witten.  44.5  MS.  in  Royal 
Library  at  Dresden. 

Schlaginhaufen 

6.  Martini    Lutheri    Privata    Dicta,    Consilia,    Judicia, 

1  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  6-12. 

2  MS.  first  noticed  by  Kawerau.  Cf.  Wrampelmeyer,  op.  cit.,  Einl., 
p.  10,  note  1;  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  35  et  seq.;  Losche,  Analecta,  p. 
4,  note  1.     Redlich  of  Berne  is  otherwise  unknown. 

3  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  xi.     Preger.  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  xviii. 

4  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  xxi. 

5  Ibid.,  Einl.,  p.  xxii.     Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  p.  cxxii. 


239-j  APPENDIX  II3 

Vaticinia,  Item  Epistolae,  Sales,  Consolationes  hince  inde 
collectae,  Anno  1567.  MS.  Clm.  943  in  the  Munich  Public 
Library.1 

Lauterbach 

7.  Tagebuch  auf  das  Jahr  1538.  MS.  in  Royal  Library 
at  Dresden.2 

8.  Meditationes  et  C  olio  quia  D.  Lutheri.  MS.  in  Stol- 
bergische  Bibliothek  at  Wernigerode.3 

9.  Tagebuch,  copied  by  Khumer  (Kummer),  in  Dresden 
Library,   1554.4 

10.  Dicta  et  Facta  R.  D.  D.  Martini  Lutheri  et  aliorum, 
1550.  "  Georgius  Steinert  hujus  codicis  est  possessor." 
MS.  in  Munich,  Clm.  937-939.  Contains  copies  from  Lau- 
terbach, and  others.5 

11.  Colloquia  Serotina  D.  M.  L.,  1536,  22  Octobris  [and 
to  1539]  descripta  ex  avroypd^u.  D.  Antonii  Lauterbachii 
primi  Superint.  Pirn,  in  Misn.  Anno  1553  manu  Pauli 
Judicis  al.  Richteri  primi  Pastoris  Neapol.  s.  Neostad.  prope 
Pirnam.     MS.  at  Gotha,  B  169.6 

Mathesius,  Tagebuch 

12.  Goth  B.  168.  MS.  in  the  Ducal  Library  at  Gotha. 
Collection  of  Judgments  of  Luther  on  sundry  things  and 
persons,  chiefly  theological.  P.  471.  This  MS.  contains 
a  great  variety  of  things.    It  has  many  of  Mathesius'  notes.7 

13.  Codex  Rhedigeranus  of  the  City  Library  at  Breslau 

1  Preger,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  iv,  v. 

2  Fdrstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  xv  et  seq.  Seidemann,  op. 
cit.,  Einl.,  p.  iii. 

3  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  iii.     Preger,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  1. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  ix. 

5  Preger,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  pp.  xxii,  xxiii. 
8  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  p.  xxii. 

7  Loscfoe,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  24  et  seq. 


Il4  APPENDIX  [240 

No.  295.     It  contains  Mathesius'  notes  copied  from  X  in 
almost  exactly  the  same  form  as  Analecta.1 

14.  Familiaria  Colloquia  Rev.  Viri  D.  D.  Mar.  Lutheri. 
In  possession  of  the  book  dealer  Hirzel  of  Leipzig.  This 
has  quite  a  variety  of  things  including  many  of  Mathesius' 
notes  "  undoubtedly  near  the  original  "  and  a  few  of  Lau- 
terbach's.1 

15.  Excerpta  haec  omnia  in  mensa  ex  ore  D.  Ma.: 
Luterj.  Anno  Domini  1540.     MS.  in  Niirnberg.2 

Mathesius,  Luther  Histories 

16.  Historien  von  des  Ehrwirdigen  in  Gott  seligen  thew- 
ren  Manns  Gottes,  Doctoris  Martini  Luther s,  anfang,  Lehr, 
leben  unnd  Sterben.  Niirnberg  1570.  (Reprinted  later, 
see  infra.) 

Plato 

17.  Memorabilia  dicta  et  facta  Lutheri.  This  MS.  was 
used  by  Kostlin  and  cited  by  him  as  the  Leipz.  Mskr.  Its 
age  and  author  are  unknown.  The  chirography  is  that 
of  the  later  Reformation  time.  The  latest  datable  piece 
(No.  214)  speaks  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  1547. 

It  contains  218  Nos.  Kroker  proved  these  to  come  from 
Plato's  collection.  Among  the  Tischreden  there  are  a  number 
of  anecdotes  of  the  guests,  Melanchthon,  Bugenhagen,  Major, 
Cruciger,  Mathesius,  &c.  It  is  much  the  most  original  of  the 
Plato  copies.  Kroker  prints  (op.  cit.,  52,  Einl.)  four  pieces 
from  it  which  are  found  nowhere  else.3 

1  Losche,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  24  et  seq. 

2  Edited  by  Losche,  1892,  as  Analecta  Lutherana  et  Melanthonia.  See 
infra,  printed  editions. 

3  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  I. 


241  ]  APPENDIX  II5 

i8.  Corpus  Reformatorum,  vol.  XX,  pp.  519-608. 
Melanchthon's  reports  of  Luther's  sayings,  described  as 
"  Certain  histories  recited  by  him  in  his  public  lectures,  col- 
lected by  a  certain  disciple,  Weric  Vendenhaimer  of  Niirn- 
berg."  These  consist  of  304  sayings  taken  mostly  from 
Plato's  collection.1 

Miscellaneous 

19.  Zwickau  N  LXX.  Adiaphoristica  item  quadem 
apophthegmata.     MS.  in  Library  of  the  Ratsschule. 

20.  Hamburg  Supellex  epistolica  Uffenbachii  et  Worli- 
orum  LXXIV.  Ad  historsam  Reformationis  spectantia. 

These  two  MSS.  are  of  very  minor  importance,  having 
only  a  few  Tischreden  in  them. 

PART  II.     THE  COLLECTIONS 
Mathesius 

1.  Eberhard.  Freyberg  in  a  school  Programme  of  1727 
speaks  of  a  MS.  of  Luther's  Tischreden  in  his  possession 
which  is  designated  as  "  Thesaurus  Theologicus,"  and  came 
from  the  hand  of  C.  Eberhard.  This  man  was  born  1523, 
at  Schneeberg,  and  died  1575,  at  Wittenberg.  He  had 
copied  it  from  the  original  of  Mathesius,  as  he  notes  in  an 
autograph  inscription  on  a  page  glued  to  the  cover :  "  Hunc 
librum  descripsi  ex.  Dni.  Magistri  Mathesii  libellis  cui  ac- 
ceptum  refero  et  gratias  immortales  ago.  Caspar  Eber- 
hard 1550,  Aprilis  2yr  This  MS.  is  unfortunately  lost. 
Dr.  Schnorr,  of  Carolsfeld,  advertised  for  it  in  vain,  and  so 
did  Kroker.2 

1  Losche,  Analecta,  Einl.,  p.  30  et  seq.  He  mentions  two  other  books 
in  which  he  has  found  parallels  to  his  own  MS,  hut  they  are  not  prop- 
erly sources  at  all. 

2  See  Seidemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  ix,  and  Kroker,  Einl.,  op.  cit.,  p.  38. 
Schnorr  gave  some  references  from  Eberhard's  life  by  D.  T.  Miiller 
(1754)  to  show  that  he  had  written  Colloquia. 


Il6  APPENDIX  [242 

2.  Lut hers  Tischreden  in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung. 
This  MS.  was  spoken  of  by  Lingke,  1769.  Losche  refers 
to  it  as  lost.1  Kroker  discovered  it  between  two  books  in 
the  Leipzig  Library,  and  edited  it.  Not  mentioned  in  the 
Catalogue  of  Leipzig  MSS.  by  Naumann,  1838;  it  appears 
in  the  catalogue  of  Politz's  Library  as  follows :  Luth. 
Martinus,  Colloquia.  Manuscripta  Collecta,  1546.  In  1885 
G.  Wustmann  printed  a  little  bit  of  it,  naming  both  Mathe- 
sius  and  Schiefer  in  connection  with  it,  but  this  indication 
of  its  whereabouts  remained  unnoticed. 

Unknown 

1.  Farrago  litter  arum  ad  amicos  et  colloquiorum  in 
mensa  RP  Domini  Martini  Lutheri  &c.  MS.  in  ducal  library 
of  Gotha.    On  the  binding  is,  M.  B.  1551.    See  supra,  p.  57. 

Lauterbach 

1.  Halle  MS.  written  1560,  edited  by  Bindseil,  1863-66. 
Contains  the  first  redaction  of  Lauterbach's  collection.  See 
above,  chapter  on  collections,  and  below,  printed  editions. 
Found  in  the  library  of  the  Orphan  Asylum  at  Halle. 
Folio  654  Bl.  Very  poor  hand.  The  sections  often  run 
together.  Said  to  have  been  edited  with  "  painful  ac- 
curacy." 2 

2.  Dresden  A  91  &  92.  Two  volumes  folio  of  283  and 
365  pages  respectively.     Anno  1562. 

3.  Gotha  A  262.  MS.  at  Gotha,  an  incomplete  copy  of 
second  part  of  the  above.     Folio  310  Bl. 

4.  Colloquia  Meditationes  &c.  Lutheri,     Edited  by  Reb- 

1  Lingke:  Luthers  Merkwiirdige  Reisegeschichte,  Einl.,  p.  3.  Seide- 
mann,  op  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  xii,  gives  numerous  references  on  Werndorf  and 
Schiefer.     Losche,  Analecta,  p.  10.     Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.   17. 

2  Bindseil,  op.  cit..  Einl.,  passim.     Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  6. 


CZellerfeld  MS  .    (Wrarapelmeyer )  . 
Redlich. 
•u     v,  j-jlflrnberg  MS.  fObenander 

Tagebuch-    --[x "-y.X-  4Bavarua      . 

Collection X Wathesiua^6- 1 

mfen  -   Tagebuch    (Preger).  t 

aginhauren  o  1536_7 _   _   Weller    (infra) :--,   Halle  MS   (Biijdseil. 

(-Dresden  MS.    (Se 

Tagebuch  1538   -|_x ,  x 

rMS.    Serotina|_    x  -     --Khumer 
Tagebuch  1539   -i '  Matheeius^  &i — | 


-ich  -T 


erbach- 


— Munich  MS . 

—  -Wernigerode  M.S. 


imple   Collection   -    X I 

jiGotha    B.   MS. 
,inus  -  Tagebuch   (lost)       pX-fc^;*  ^.olia) 

(Tagebuch  1540   -  -j       LRhedigeranue  MS. 
l_Wathesiue.§-l   


iGotha  MS. 

-Dresden  MS. 

-X- (Rebenstock) 

■    X  -    X  -  Wblfenbflttel  MS. 


neeius 


Luther  Histori.ee    (1570) 

old  -  Mathesius^3 

denreich  -  Mathesiue^2. 


■ — Memorabilia  „  _  Oof»™o»nniii]  . 

to  -Tuelanchthon   (Vendenhaimer  in   QflxmS  Ra^rroatorum.)  .  ^ 

l—Matheelus^  7   

lz   -   Tagebuch  

ifaber   -   Tagebuch   


r-Kruginger   - 


-Leipsig  MS. 
(KroKer) 


L-Eberhard    (lost) 


-   Aur ifaber 
(1566) 


ik 


243j  APPENDIX  117 

enstock  at  Frankfurt  a.  M.   1571.     See  chapter  on  collec- 
tions and  infra,  printed  editions. 

5.  MS.  in  Wolfenbuttel  of  1562.  Extra  72.  Two  parts 
of  169  and  236  pages  respectively.  It  contains  some  mat- 
ter besides  Tischreden.1 

Aurifaber 

1.  Deutsche  Tischreden,  printed  1566  et  saepe.  See 
chapter  on  collections  and  below,  printed  editions. 

2.  C  germ.  4502  in  Munich.  Anno  1614.  Two  parts, 
229  and  191  pages,  octavo.     Extracts  from  Aurifaber.2 

3.  Karlsruhe  437,  Luther's  Tischreden  I535"I542. 
Written  circa  1575;  contains  extracts  from  the  printed  edi- 
tion, with  other  matter  in  the  appendices.2 

PART  III.     THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  MSS. 

A  Table  showing  the  relations  of  the  MSS.  will  be  found 
opposite  this  page.  The  explanation  of  this  table  is  as 
follows : 

We  start  here  with  the  twelve  notetakers,  and  trace  the 
process  of  transcription  through  which  their  notes  went.  We 
first  observe  that  these  transcriptions  were  not  exact,  the  copyist 
changed  both  the  matter  and  the  order  of  what  he  copied,  left 
out  a  good  deal  and  introduced  extraneous  matter.  We  simply 
mean  that  the  MSS.  took  most  of  their  material  from  the 
sources  indicated,  though  they  often  took  much  from  others, 
especially,  of  course,  in  the  large  collections.  A  full  descrip- 
tion of  the  MSS.  has  already  been  given. 

The  Tagebuch  of  Cordatus  is  known  in  two  MSS. 

Dietrich  kept  a  notebook,  and  also  had  a  collection,  copied 
from  others.  The  former  is  known  in  the  MS.  Dietrich,  the 
lost  MS.  X  copied  from  both,  and  was  the  source  of  three 
other  copies,  Bavarus,  Obenander  and  Mathesius  §  6. 

1  Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  7.     Mentioned  in  Kroker,  op.  cit.,  Einl.,  p.  37- 

2  Meyer,  loc.  cit.,  p.  36. 


Il8  APPENDIX  [244 

Schlaginhaufen's  Tagebuch  was  edited  by  Preger. 

Lauterbach  was  the  author  of  at  least  four  sources.  The 
first  Tagebuch  was  copied  by  Weller,  both  in  his  notebook  and 
his  collection.  The  second  was  edited  from  a  Dresden  MS. 
by  Seidemann,  and  is  also  known  in  three  other  more  or  less 
complete  copies,  Khumer,  Munich  MS.,  and  Wemigerode  MS. 
The  third  Tagebuch  is  known  in  the  MS.  Serotina,  and  also 
in  excerpts  in  the  fifth  section  of  Kroker.  The  fourth  book 
was  a  simple  collection,  *.  e.,  a  book  of  copies  from  others, 
which  was  taken  into  three  of  the  MSS.  which  have  the  Tage- 
buch of  1539,  viz.,  Khumer,  Munich,  and  Wemigerode.  From 
one  of  these,  or  a  MS.  like  them,  Lauterbach  made  his  large 
collection,  taking  notes  also  from  other  sources  doubtless, 
especially  from  his  own  earlier  notes,  possibly  through  Weller. 
The  first  redaction  was  edited  from  the  Halle  MS.  by  Bindseil. 
The  second  is  known  in  two  copies,  MSS.  at  Gotha,  and  Dres- 
den. From  another  lost  copy  a  third  redaction  was  made  and 
edited  by  Rebenstock.  By  a  fourth  line  a  fourth  redaction 
was  made,  which  we  have  in  the  Wolfenbiittel  MS.,  which  was 
the  source  of  Aurifaber.  Aurifaber  also  incorporated  other 
notes,  especially  important  being  his  own  and  those  of  Stolz, 
which  are  unknown  in  any  other  form. 

Weller's  Tagebuch  and  Sammlung,  in  both  of  which  he 
copied  largely  from  Lauterbach,  were  incorporated  into  the 
MS.  published  by  Kroker,  but  in  different  ways. 

Corvinus'  notebook,  if  he  had  one,  is  lost.  One  of  his  notes 
survives  in  Schlaginhaufen. 

Mathesius  was  the  author  of  two  books  of  Tischreden,  the 
Tagebuch  of  1540  and  the  Luther  Histories.  The  first  was 
copied  in  a  lost  MS.,  X,  and  from  it  by  four  other  extant  MS., 
Gotha  B.,  Hirzil,  Rhedigeranus,  and  the  one  edited  as  Analecta 
by  Losche.  It  was  also  copied  by  Plato,  and  incorporated  by 
Mathesius  himself  as  the  first  section  of  his  collection.  The 
other  sources  of  this  collection  are  indicated  by  lines ;  they 
were  all  kept  by  Mathesius  himself  in  a  lost  MS.,  X.  This 
was  copied  by  Eberhard,  whose  MS.  is  lost,  and  also  by  Krii- 
ginger,  who  added  to  them  his  own  copy  of  Weller,  published 
as  8  8  of  Mathesius  in  Kroker. 


245j  APPENDIX  119 

Heydenreich  and  Besold  are  known  only  in  copies  in  the 
Mathesian  Collection. 

Plato  was  copied  by  Melanchthon,  and  taken  from  him  as 
lecture  notes  by  Vendenhaimer,  whence  they  were  reprinted  in 
the  Corpus  Reformatorum.  He  was  also  copied  by  the  MS. 
Memorabilia,  and  by  Mathesius  in  the  seventh  section. 

Stolz  and  Aurifaber,  as  has  already  been  stated,  survive 
only  in  the  collection  of  the  latter,  where  their  notes  cannot  be 
distinguished  from  those  taken  from  other  sources. 

Some  MSS.,  such  as  Hamburg,  Zwickau,  and  the  collection 
Farrago,  cannot  be  placed  in  this  table  at  all,  as  their  notes  are 
either  too  few  or  their  complexity  too  great  to  enable  the  in- 
vestigator to  determine  their  relations.  They  are  all  unim- 
portant. 

PART  IV.     PRINTED  EDITIONS;  GERMAN  AND 

LATIN 
Aurifaber 

1.  Tischreden  oder  Colloquia  Doct.  Mart.  Luthers,  so  er 
in  vielen  Jaren,  gegen  gelarten  Leuten,  auch  frembden  Ges- 
ten,  und  seinen  Tischgesellen  gefiiret,  Nach  den  Heubt- 
stucken  unserer  Chritlichen  Lere,  zusammen  getragen. 
Eisleben.  1566.1 

The  Tischreden  are  divided  here,  as  in  all  of  Aurifaber's 
editions,  into  80  great  chapters.  In  this  edition  they  are  in- 
correctly numbered  82,  nos.  23  and  32  being  left  out. 

2.  The  same,  Frankfurt  am  Mayn,  1567.  Folio.  Doubt- 
less pirated.1 

3.  The  same,  Frankfurt  am  Mayn.  Octave,  2  vols.  Un- 
der the  title  we  have:  "Anfenglichs  von  Antonio  Lauter- 
bach  zusammen  getragen,  Hernacher  in  gewisse  Locos  Com- 
munes verf asset  unci  aus  viel  anderer  Gelehrter  Leuth  Col- 
lectaneis  gemehret  Durch  Herrn  Joh.  Aurifaber."  This  edi- 
tion was  also  pirated.1 

1  Irmischer,  Luthers  Tischreden,  S'dmt.  Werke,  Frankfurt  am  Mayn 
und  Erlangen,  vol.  57,  Einl.,  p.  x  et  seq. 


120  APPENDIX  [246 

4.  The  same,  Frankfurt  am  Mayn,  1568,  folio.  A  new 
introduction,  by  Aurifaber,  dated  July  1,  1567,  complains 
of  changes  and  additions  to  his  authentic  volume  of  Tisch- 
reden.  He  probably  alludes  to  the  last  two  editions,  though 
the  changes  in  them  are  very  slight.1 

5.  The  same,  Frankfurt  am  Mayn,  1569,  folio.  Appen- 
dix with  prophecies  of  Luther  collected  by  Mag.  G.  Walther, 
and  subscription  by  J.  Fink.1 

6.  The  same,  Eisleben,  1569.     Folio.2 

7.  The  same,  Eisleben,  1577.     Folio.1 

8.  Tischreden  von  Martini  Lutheri,  so  er  in  vielen  Jaren 
die  Zeyt  seines  Lebens  gegen  Gelehrten  Leuthen  &c.  Anfen- 
glichs  von  M.  Anthonio  Lauterbach  zusammen  getragen. 
Hernacher  in  gewisse  Locos  Communes  verfasset  und  aus 
viel  anderer  Gelehrter  Leute  Collectaneis  gemehret  durch 
Johannem  Aurifabrum.     Frankfurt  am  Mayn  1571. 

This  edition  is  not  mentioned  in  Irmischer,  Bindseil,  or  any 
other  catalogue  of  the  Tischreden.  I  have  seen  a  copy  at 
Union  Seminary,  New  York,  and  there  is  another  at  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  Baltimore. 

It  is  a  pirated  edition,  copied  mainly  from  no.  3,  but  with 
changes  taken  from  no.  5.  After  Aurifaber's  Preface  of  1569 
comes  the  register  of  80  chapters,  and  at  the  end  a  sort  of 
Appendix  put  in  the  Index  as  "Audi  noch  viel  andere  Tisch- 
reden Doct.  Mart.  Luth.  zum  theil  in  die  obgesetzte  Locos 
gehorende,  von  allerley  Sachen,  auss  etlichen  geschrie'benen 
Bikhern  zusammen  getragen." 

At  the  end  comes  an  Appendix  of  Propheteyung  D.  Mar- 
tini Lutheri.  Then  the  alphabetic  Index.  On  the  last  page 
the  colophon:  Gedruct  zu  Frankfurt  am  Mayn  durch  Peter 
Schmid  und  Sigismund  Feyerabend. 

1  Irmischer,  Luthers  Tischreden,  S'dmt.  Werke,  Frankfurt  am  Main 
und  Erlangen,  vol.  57,  Einl.,  p.  x  et  seq. 

2  Ibid.     I  have  seen  this  edition  at  Union  Theological  Seminary. 


247]  APPENDIX  I2I 

Stangwald 

9.  Tischreden  doctor  Mart.  Luthers,  so  er  in  vielen 
Jaren,  gegen  Gelarten  Leuten,  auch  frembden  Gesten,  und 
seinen  Tischgesellen  gefuhret.  Nach  den  Haupstiicken 
unserer  Christlichen  Lehre,  zusammen  getragen.  Und  jetzt 
Auffs  neuwe  in  ein  richtige  Ordnung  gebracht,  Und  nach 
den  geschriebenen  Tischreden  Doct.  Mart.  Luth.  Cor- 
rigiert. 

This  title  is  followed  by  a  picture  of  Luther  at  table  with 
six  men,  four  boys  attending.  Lower  down  on  the  page  we 
see:  Gedruct  zn  Frankfurt  am  Mayn,  durch  Thomas  Rebarts 
Seligen  Erben  .  .  .  (the  sheet  is  torn  at  this  point),  and  fur- 
ther down  the  date :  M.  D.  LXXI. 

Aurifaber's  Preface  then  comes,  dated  July  7,  1569.  The 
Tischreden  themselves  form  a  thick  folio.  They  are  divided 
into  nine  large  sections,  unnumbered,  each  section  divided  into 
several  captions,  numbered,  making  43  captions  in  all,  as 
against  Aurifaber's  80;  though  about  the  same  amount  of 
material  is  in  each.1 

The  name  of  the  editor  does  not  appear  on  the  titlepage  of 
this  edition,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  was  Stangwald,  as 
he  speaks  of  it  in  his  edition  of  1591.  In  the  preface  to  the 
latter  edition  he  describes  his  work,  and  says  he  was  led  to 
undertake  the  redaction  in  order  to  get  an  edition  closer  to  the 
original  text. 

10.  The  same,  1591,  with  name  of  editor  on  the  title- 
page,  and  preface  explaining  the  method  of  improvement, 
from  the  notes  of  Mathesius  and  Morlin.  This  edition 
was  published  at  Jena.2 

1 1  saw  a  copy  of  this  edition  at  Harvard,  where  it  was  ascribed  to 
Aurifaber  in  the  catalogue  until  I  pointed  out  to  the  librarian  that  it 
really  belonged  to  Stangwald. 

2  Irmischer,  op.  cit.,  xiii,  xiv.  Forstemann-Bindseil,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv, 
p.  xxviii. 


122  APPENDIX  [24g 

ii.   The  same,  reprint  at  Leipzig  by  T.  Steinmann,  1603. * 

12.  The  same,  1621,  at  Leipzig,  by  B.  Voigt.  This  has 
the  colophon  at  the  end,  "  Printed  at  Jena  by  T.  Stein- 
man,  1603."  2 

13.  Edition  of  1669  at  Frankfurt  a.M.s 

14.  The  same,  folio,  1700,  at  Leipzig. 

15.  The  same,  1723,  at  Dresden  and  Leipzig.  Georgisch 
in  his  Biicher-Lexicon  gives  the  date  as  1722. 

Selneccer 

16.  Colloquia,  oder  Christliche  Niitzliche  Tischreden 
Doctoris  Martini  Lutheri,  so  er  in  vielen  Jaren,  gegen  Gele- 
hrten  Leuten,  und  frembden  Gesten,  und  seinen  Genossen, 
nach  den  Heuptstiicken  unserer  Christlichen  Lehre,  gehal- 
ten.  Erstlich  durch  M.  Johannem  Aurifabrum  seligen, 
fleissig  zusammengetragen  und  in  Druck  gegben:  Jetzt 
auffs  newe  in  ein  richtige  Ordnung  gebracht,  und  also  ver- 
fertiget,  das  sie  alien  Christen  sehr  notig,  niitzlich,  und 
trostlich,  sonderlich  zu  diesen  elenden  letzten  zeiten,  zu  lesen 
sind.  Sampt  einer  newen  Vorrede,  und  kurtzen  Beschrei- 
bung  des  Lebens  und  wandels  Herrn  Doctoris  Lutheri,  auch 
sehr  niitzlichem  Register  am  Ende  dieses  Buchs  angehenget, 
aller  Biicher  und  Capitel  der  Gottlichen,  heiligen  schrifft, 
wo,  und  wenn  dieselbigen  der  Herr  Doctor  Lutherus  aus- 
gelegt,  und  erkleret  habe,  und  in  welchen  Tomis  solche 
auslegung  zu  finden  sei. 

After  a  Latin  couplet  and  the  usual  quotation  from  John  6 
we  see :   Nic.  Selneccerus.     Leipsig,  MDLXXVII. 

1  This  is  in  the  British  Museum  Catalogue.  It  is  not  spoken  of  in 
Irmischer.  hut  its  existence  might  be  inferred  from  his  description  of 
no.  12,  in  which  the  colophon  of  this  edition  was  taken  over  unchanged. 

2  Irmischer,  ibid. 

3  This  is  known  only  through  a  note  in  Georgisch  in  his  Biicher- 
Lexicon,  quoted  by  Irmischer,  op.  cit.,  p.  xv. 


249]  APPENDIX  I2~ 

After  this  Aurifaber's  Preface  of  1569  is  inserted.     Then  an 
"Historica  Oratio"  on  Luther's  life.1 

17.  The  same,  1 5801 

18.  The  same,  1581.1 

Other  German  Editors 

19.  D.  Martin  Luther s  sowol  in  Deutscher  als  Latein- 
ischer  Sprache  verfertigte  und  aus  der  letzteren  in  die  ers- 
tere  ubersetzte  Samtliche  Schriften.  Zwei  und  zwansigster 
Theil,  Welcher  die  Colloquia  oder  Tischreden,  so  von 
Johann  Aurifaber  mit  Fleiss  zusammen  getragen,  und  nach 
den  Hauptstiicken  der  Christlichen  Lehre  und  Glaubens 
verfasset  worden,  enthalt;  Herausgegeben  von  Johann 
Georg  Walch,  der  heiligen  Schrift  D.  und  Prof.  Publ.  Or- 
din.  auf  der  Universitat  Jena,  wie  auch  Hochfurstl.  Sachs, 
und  Brandenb.  Onolzb.  Kirchen-  und  Consistorial-Rath. 
Halle  im  Magdeburgischen.  Druckts  und  verlegts  Joh. 
Justinus  Gebauer.     1743. 

This  was  the  22d  volume  of  his  edition  of  the  Samtliche 
Werke,  which  began  to  come  out  1740.2 

20.  Dr.  Martin  Luthcrs  Sinnreiche  Tischreden.  Nach 
den  Hauptstiicken  christlicher  Lehre  verfasst.  Neue,  wohl- 
feile  Ausgabe.  2  Bde.  Stuttgart  und  Leipzig.  Verlag  von 
L.  F.  Nieger  und  Comp.     1836.8 

21.  D.  Martin  Lathers  Tischreden  oder  Colloquia,  so  er 
in  vielen  Jahren  gegen  gelahrten  Leuten,  auch  frembden 
Gasten  und  seinen  Tischgesellen  gefiihret,  nach  den  Haupt- 
stiicken  unserer   Christlichen   Lehre   zusammen   getragen. 

1  Irmischer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  57,  p.  xv. 

2  These  editions  are  common. 

s  Irmischer,  op.  cit.,  vol.  57,  p.  xvi. 


124  APPENDIX  [250 

Nach  Aurifaber's  erster  Ausgabe,  mit  sorgfaltiger  Verg- 
leichung  sowohl  der  Stangwald'schen  als  der  Selneccers' 
schen  redaktion  herausgegeben  und  erlautert  von  Karl 
Eduard  Forstemann,  und  Heinrich  Ernst  Bindseil  .... 
Berlin. 

Four  Volumes,  1844- 1848. 

22.  Martin  Lnthers  Tischreden.  Den  Deutschen  Volke 
der  Gegenwart  angeeignet  von  Dr.  R.  L.  B.  Wolf.  Leipzig, 
1852.  This  is  a  selection  from  the  Tischreden  made  by 
Wolff.1 

23.  Dr.  Martin  Luthers  Sammtliche  VVerke.  Frank- 
furt a.  M.  and  Erlangen.  1854.  Dr.  Mart.  Luthers  ver- 
mischte  deutsche  Schriften.  Nach  den  altesten  Ausgaben 
kritisch  und  historisch  bearbeitet  von  Dr.  Johann  Konrad 
Irmischer.     II  Tischreden.     Vols.  57-62. 

24.  Dr.  Martin  Luthers  Sammtliche  Schriften  herausge- 
geben von  Dr.  Joh.  Georg.  Walch.  Zweiundzwansigster 
Band.  Colloquia  oder  Tischreden.  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Luther- 
scher  Concordia- Verlag.  1887.  Dr.  Martin  Luthers 
Colloquia  oder  Tischreden.  Zum  ersten  Male  berichtigt 
und  erneuert  durch  iibersetzung  der  beiden  Hauptquellen 
der  Tischreden  aus  der  lateinischen  Originalen,  namlich  des 
Tagebuchs  des  Dr.  Conrad  Cordatus  iiber  Dr.  M.  Luther, 
1537  und  des  Tagebuchs  des  M.  Anton  Lauterbach  auf  das 
Jahr,  1538.2 

25.  Luthers  Tischreden.  Schmidt.  1878.  A  small 
selection  "  fur  das  Christlichen  Haus." 

26.  Kraft-Spriiche  Dr.  Martin  Luthers.  Aus  der  Ori- 
ginal Ausgabe  seiner  Tischreden  von  J.  Aurifaber  zusam- 
men  gestellt  und  mit  erlauternden  Anmerknngen  versehen 
von  A  Reichenbach.     Leipzig,  1883. 

1  Hartford  Theological  Seminary  Library. 

2  Union  Theological  Seminary  Library. 


251]  APPENDIX  I25 

27.  Luther s  Schriften  in  Bd  15  of  the  series  Deutsche 
National  Literature.  Ed.  by  E.  Wolf.  1884-1892.  A 
very  small  selection  of  the  Tischreden  at  the  end  of  this. 

28.  Meyers  Volksbiicher.  Luther s  Tischreden.  Six 
small  volumes,  each  dedicated  to  a  separate  subject. 
1889-92. 

Probably  a  large  number  of  other  editions  of  the  same  char- 
acter as  the  last  four — little  selections  for  the  edification  of  the 
pious  Lutheran,  or  for  the  amusement  of  those  interested  in 
German  history  and  literature — have  been  published.  They 
are  of  so  little  importance  that  I  have  not  thought  it  worth 
while  to  make  an  exhaustive  search  for  them. 

Latin  Editors1 

29.  Colloquia,  meditationes,  consolationes,  consilia,  ju- 
dicia,  sententiae,  narrationes ,  responsa,  facetiae  D.  Martini 
Lutheri,  piae  et  sanctae  memoriae,  in  mensa  prandii  et 
coenae,  et  in  peregrinationibus  observata  et  Udeliter  trans- 
scripta.  Francofurti  ad  Moenum.  Rebenstock.  2  vols. 
1571.2 

1  There  is  one  little  book  which  purports  to  be  a  Latin  edition  of  the 
Tischreden,  but  it  is  not.  I  mean:  "Sylvula  Sentcntiarum,  Exem- 
plorum,  Facetiarum,  Partim  ex  Reverendi  Viri,  D.  Martini  Lutheri,  ac 
Philippi  Melanthonis  cum  privatis  turn  publicis  relationibus ;  Partim  ex 
aliorum  veterum  atq.  recentium  Doctorum  monumentis  observata  &  in 

Locos  Communes  ordine  Alphabetico  disposita Per  N.  Ericeum. 

[Pictures  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon]    Francofurti  ad   Moenum,  per 
Petrum  Fabricium  &  Sigismundum  Feyerbend.     1566." 

This  is  a  mere  collection  of  odds  and  ends  from  writings  of  and 
about  Luther ;  no  proper  Colloquia.  It  may  be  compared  to  the  Table 
Talk  of  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  collected  from  his  writings  and  from 
Boswell. 

2  Rebenstock's  name  is  not  on  the  titlepage,  but  in  the  preface.  The 
first  volume  was  dated  1558  in  all  descriptions  of  this  rare  work,  until 
Bindseil,  in  his  Colloquia,  preface,  discovered  the  true  date  of  both 
volumes  to  be  1571.  The  confusion  arose  from  the  fact  that  a  picture 
was  inserted  on  the  first  page,  which  bore  the  date  (singularly  enough) 
1558;  the  Preface,  however,  was  signed  and  dated  1571. 


I25  APPENDIX  [252 

30.  D.  Martini  Lutheri  Colloquia,  meditationes,  consol- 
ationes,  iudiciae,  sententiae,  narrationes,  responsa,  facetiae. 
E  codice  Bibliothecae  Orphanotrophei  Halensis  cum  per- 
petua  collatione  Editionis  Rebenstockianae  edita  et  prole- 
gominis  indicibusque  instructa  ab  Henrico  Ernesto  Bindseil. 
3  vols.      1 863- 1 866.     Lemgoviae  et  Detmoldiae. 

Printed  Editions  of  Sources 

31.  M.  Anton  Lauterbachs  Diaconi  zu  Wittenberg, 
Tagebuch  auf  das  Jahr,  1338,  die  Haupt  quelle  der  Tisc It- 
red  en  Luther  s.  Aus  der  Handschrift  herausgegeben 
von  Lie.  theol.  Johann  Karl  Seidemann  Pastor  zu  Eschdorf. 
Dresden,  1872. 

32.  Tagebuch  iiber  Dr.  Martin  Luther  gefiihret  von  Dr. 
Conrad  Cordatus,  1537.  Zum  ersten  Male  Herausgege- 
ben von  Dr.  H.   Wrampelmeyer  .  .  .  Halle  .  .  .   1885. 

33.  Luther s  Tischreden  aus  den  Jahr  en  1531  und  1532. 
Nach  den  Aufzeichnungen  von  Joh.  Schlaginhaufen.  Von 
W.  Preger.     Leipzig,  1888. 

34.  Analecta  Lutherana  et  Melanthonia.  Von  G. 
Losche.     Gotha  1892. 

35.  Luthers  Tischreden  in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung. 
Aus  einer  Handschrift  der  Leipziger  Stadtbibliothek  heraus- 
gegeben von  Ernst  Kroker  .  .  .  Leipzig,  1903. 

This  publication  contains,  besides  772  numbers  from  the 
Leipsig  MS.,  2  from  Bavarus,  1  each  from  Cordatus  B  and 
Analecta,  6  from  Memorabilia,  and  65  from  Serotina. 

PART  V.     TRANSLATIONS 
English 

1.  Dris.  Martini  Lutheri  Colloquia  Mensalia  or  Dr. 
Martin   Luther's  Divine  Distourses  at   his   Table,   which 


253]  APPENDIX  l2? 

in  his  Lifetime  he  held  with  clivers  Learned  Men,  such  as 
were  Philip  Melanchthon,  Casparus  Cruciger,  Justus  Jonas, 
Paulus  Eberus,  Vitus  Dietericus  Johannes  Bugenhagen,' 
Johannes  Forsterus,  and  Others.  Containing  Questions 
and  Answers  Touching  Religion  and  other  main  points  of 
Doctrine;  as  also  Many  notable  Histories,  and  all  sorts  of 
Learning,  Comforts,  Advices,  Prophecies,  Admonitions, 
Directions  and  Instructions,  Collected  first  together  by  Dr.' 
Antonius  Lauterbach,  And  afterwards  disposed  into  certain 
Commonplaces  by  John  Aurifaber,  D.  D.  Translated  from 
the  High  German  into  the  English  Tongue  by  Captain 
Henry  Bell.  London:  Printed  by  William  Du-Gard, 
dwelling  in  Suffolk-lane,  near  London-stone,  1652. 1 

2.  The  same,  1791.  The  title  is  the  same  down  to  Cap- 
tain Henry  Bell,  then  come  the  words:  Second  Edition. 
To  which  is  prefixed,  "The  Life  and  Character  of  Dr. 
Martin  Luther:  by  John  Gottlieb  Burckhardt,  D.  D.,  min- 
ister of  the  German  Lutheran  Congregation  at  the  Savoy, 
in  London.  London:  Printed  for  the  Proprietor,  W 
Heptinstal,  No.  3  Wood  Street,  Spa  Fields,  Clerkenwell 
MDCCXCI.2 

3.  Familiar  Discourses  of  Martin  Luther.     Translated 
by  Captain  Bell  and  revised  by  J  Kerby.     Lewes,  1818.3 

4.  Choice  Fragments  from  the  Discourses  of  Luther. 
London,  1832. 4 

5.  The   Table   Talk  or  Familiar  Discourses  of  Martin 

»  Copy  at  Union  Seminary.  The  titlepage  is  preceded  by  a  full-length 
picture  of  Luther. 

2  The  Lane  Theological  Seminary,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  was  kind 
enough  to  let  me  see  its  copy  of  this  edition,  which  I  have  not  found 
elsewhere. 

3  Catalogue  of  Brit.  Museum. 

4  Lenox  Library. 


128  APPENDIX  [254 

Luther.      Translated  by  William  Hazlitt,  Esq.      London. 
MDCCCXLVIII. 

6.  The  same  in  Bohn's  Library,  with  Luther's  Life  by 
Dr.  Chalmers.     1857.1 

7.  The  same.     1900. 

8.  The  same;  American  Edition  by  Lutheran  Publishing 
Co.  of  Philadelphia.3 

9.  The  Table-Talk  of  Doctor  Martin  Luther.  IVth 
Centenary  edition  edited  by  T  Fisher  Unwin.  London. 
1883.1 

10.  Luther  at  Table.  Elegant  Extracts  from  his  Talk. 
W.  H.  Anderson,  London,  1883.1 

11.  Luther's  Table  Talk.  Extracts  selected  by  Dr. 
Macauley.     1883.1 

12.  Selections  from  the  Table  Talk  of  Martin  Luther. 
Translated  by  Bell.  Cassell's  National  Library,  Vol.  14, 
I886.1 

Tischreden  may  also  be  found  in  translation  in  the  fol- 
lowing volumes: 

13.  Luther's  Life  written  by  himself,  arranged  and  trans- 
lated by  Lawson.     Edinburgh,   1832. 

14.  Luther's  Life  by  himself.  Arranged  by  J  Michelet, 
Translated  by  Wm  Hazlitt.     1846. 

15.  The  same  translated  by  Smith.     New  York,  1846.* 

16.  The  Prophecies  of  Luther  concerning  the  Downfall 
of  Rome.     Collected  by  R.  C.  m.  a.     London,  1664.1 

17.  Warner's  Library  of  the  World's  Best  Literature. 
Selection  from  Hazlitt. 

18.  Words  that  shook  the  world,  or  Martin  Luther  his 
own  biographer.     New  York,   1858.     By  C  Adams.3 

1  Catalogue  of  Brit.  Museum. 

2  So  they  write  me,  but  give  no  date, 
a  Astor  Library. 


255]  APPENDIX  l2g 

French  Translations 

i.  Les  Propos  de  Table  de  Martin  l^uther,  Revus  sur  les 
editions  originates,  et  traduits  pour  la  premiere  fois  en 
Francais.     Paris,  1844.     By  Gustave  Brunet. 

Some  Tischreden  are  also  translated  into  French  in  the 
following : 

2.  Memoires  de  Luther  ecrits  par  lui-meme;  traduits  et 
mis  en  ordre  par  M.  Michelet  ....   Paris,   1835. 

3.  The  same  Bruxelles  1845. 

4.  Audin:  Histoire  de  la  vie,  des  ouvrages  et  des  doc- 
trine de  Luther.      1839. 

PART  VI.     WORKS  RELATING  TO  THE  TISCH- 
REDEN 

Most  of  the  textual  criticism  of  the  Tischreden  is  to  be 
found  in  the  introductions  to  the  various  editions  enumer- 
ated above.  The  older  editions  are  worth  little,  even  Bind- 
seil's  Introductions  to  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Forste- 
mann-Bindseil  edition  of  the  German  Tischreden,  and  to 
his  edition  of  the  Latin  Colloquia,  though  showing  more 
acumen  and  a  greater  grasp  and  critical  ability  than  any  of 
the  preceding,  are  worth  less  than  more  recent  work,  be- 
cause of  the  publication  of  so  many  of  the  sources,  which 
has  made  the  old  collections  comparatively  valueless. 
Criticism  of  the  texts  of  the  sources  began  with  Seidmann's 
Introduction  to  Lanterbach's  Tagebuch,  (1872),  which  is 
confined  to  a  description  of  MSS.  and  their  authors 
and  possessors  in  such  condensed  form  as  to  be  little 
more  than  a  series  of  exhaustive  references.  The  copious 
Introduction  and  notes  of  Wrampelmeyer  (to  Cordatus 
Tagebuch,  1885)  hardly  went  outside  the  field  of  his  own 
MS.,  though  he  added  many  parallels  to  this.  His  judg- 
ment was  warped  by  over-appreciation  of  his  text.     Preger, 


I30  APPENDIX  [256 

in  his  Introduction  to  Schlaginhauffen's  Notes  (1888)  is 
valuable  for  his  researches  on  Dietrich  and  Schlaginhaufen's 
notes.  He  aims  to  strike  the  happy  mean  "  zwischen  dem 
Seidemann'schen  zu  wenig  und  dem  Wrampelmeyer'schen 
zu  viel."  Losche,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Analecta  Lu- 
therana  at  Melanthonia  (1892),  gave  the  most  complete 
account  of  MSS.  up  to  that  time  published,  though  his  inter- 
pretation of  his  own  text  as  a  copy  of  the  Mathesian  Col- 
lection turned  out  incorrect.  He  indulges  in  a  somewhat 
pretentious  style,  speaking  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon  as 
the  "  Reformatorische  Dioscuri,"  and  commenting  severely 
on  the  "  niedriges  niveau  "  shown  by  Melancthon's  telling 
stories  in  his  class-room.  By  far  the  best  thing  that  has 
come  out  on  the  texts,  up  to  date,  both  for  amount  of  de- 
tailed work,  and  for  a  large  grasp  of  critical  principles,  is 
Kroker's  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  Mathesian  Col- 
lection.    (1903). 

The  only  piece  of  work  on  the  texts  of  the  Collections  is 
found  in  the  article  of  W.  Meyer  aus  Speyer :  "  Ueber  Lau- 
terbachs  und  Aurifabers  Sammlungen  d.  Tischreden  Lu- 
thers."  In  Abhandlnngen  d.  k.  Gesellsch.  d.  Wissenschaf- 
ten  z.  Gbttingen.  Phil-Hist.  Kl.  Neue  Folge  Bd.  1.  Nr.  2. 
1897.  He  first  established  the  relation  of  Lauterbach  and 
Aurifaber,  proving  that  Lauterbach  had  made  several  redac- 
tions. He  based  his  conclusions  on  an  examination  of  the 
MSS.  which  shows  real  German  Griindlichkeit. 

A  considerable  amount  of  periodical  literature  on  the 
texts  might  be  cited,  but  it  is  either  in  the  form  of  an- 
nouncements of  MSS.  to  be  published  (e.  g.,  H.  E. 
Bindseil :  "  Bemerkungen  iiber  die  Deutschen  und  Latein- 
ischen  Tischreden  Luthers,"  in  Theol.  Stud  u.  Krit.,  1866, 
pp.  702-716),  or  of  reviews  of  the  same,  which  in  any  case 
appeared  in  better  form  in  the  critical  apparatus  of  the  edi- 
tion in  question. 


257]  APPENDIX  I3I 

For  light  on  contemporary  events  and  the  place  of 
Tischreden  in  history :  encyclopedias,  works  on  the  Refor- 
mation, lives  of  Luther,  and  Luther's  works,  must  all 
be  consulted.  For  particular  points,  such  as  the  life  of 
one  of  the  Tischgesellen,  A.  Hauck's  Realencyclopddie  fur 
protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  3d.  ed.  which  is  now 
appearing  (last  vol.  XVII,  1906  to  Schutzheilige),  is  in- 
dispensable. Somewhat  less  useful  is  the  Catholic  counter- 
part, the  Kirchenlexicon  in  12  vols,  (completed  in  1901). 
I  have  also  used  the  Allgemeine  Deutsche  Bibliographie. 

General  Histories  of  the  Reformation  say  little  about  the 
Tischreden,  Lavisse  and  Rambaud  (Vol.  IV,  Renaisance  et 
Re  forme  1894)  gives  a  brief,  and  rather  harsh  appreciation 
of  them. 

The  lives  of  Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  make  much  of 
them.  Kostlin  {Martin  Luther,  second  edition,  1883) 
gives  a  good  account  of  them  (vol.  1,  p.  774,  vol.  ii,  p.  487 
et  seq.),  and  refers  to  them  as  an  authority  in  al- 
most every  note.  Thoroughly  sympathetic  with  his  sub- 
ject, he  feels  the  amiability  of  Luther's  domestic  life,  though 
he,  like  the  other  writers  on  the  subject,  thinks  he  must 
excuse  the  faults  of  taste.  Hausrath,  Luthers  Leben 
(new  ed.,  1905)  must  also  be  mentioned.  Lindsay  in  his 
small  but  excellent  work,  Luther  and  the  German  Reforma- 
tion, 1903,  speaks  appreciatively  of  the  Tischreden  (p.  293). 
Dollinger,  Die  Reformation,  Hire  innere  Entzvickelung 
(1853-1854,  3  vols.),  and  Denifle,  Luther  und  Lutherthum, 
(2  vols.,  1904,  1905),  attack  the  Tischreden  from  the  other 
standpoint,  finding  in  them  a  rich  source  of  damaging  ma- 
terial. Seckendorf,  Historie  d.  Lutherthums  (German  ed., 
1714),  gives  some  early  reference  which  throw  light  on 
occasional  points. 

Luther's  Works  are  of  course  the  most  valuable  con- 
temporary source  in  explaining  allusions  and  clearing  up 


132  APPENDIX  [258 

obscurities.  The  splendid  edition  coming  out  now  at 
Weimar  (29  vols.,  published  1883-1904)  is  the  best. 
Walch,  Sdmtliche  Werke  24  vols.,  1 740-1753)  is  good. 
Luther's  Letters  are  the  source  most  closely  related  to  the 
Tischreden.  De  Wette,  Luthers  Brief e  (6  vols.,  1825-56), 
covers,  his  whole  life.  Ender's  Luthers  Briefwechsel  now 
appearing,  is  fuller  (Vol.  X.  to  July,  1536,  1903). 

For  special  purposes  the  following  works  on  Luther's 
Life  or  Works  have  been  referred  to : 

Lingke:  Merkwiirdige  Reisegeschichte  Luther's,   1769. 

F.  S.  Keil :  Merkwiirdige  Lebensumstdnde  Luther's, 
1764. 

Kolde:  Analecta  Luther  ana,  1883.  This  is  a  collec- 
tion of  miscellaneous  contemporary  sources. 

Bretschneider :  Corpus  Reformat orum,  vol.  1-28,  Me- 
lanchthon.      1834- 1860. 

Kawerau:  Briefwechsel  d.  J.  Jonas.  2  vols,  1884-5,  v°l- 
17  of  Geschichtsquellen  d.  Provinz  Sachsen. 

Losche:  Johannes  Mathesius.  Ein  Lcbens  and  Sitten- 
bild  aus  der  Reformationzeit.     2  Bd.  Gotha,  1905.- 

Losche:  G.  Mathesius'  Ausgewdhlte  Werke.  4  Bd. 
New  Ed.  Prag.,  1904.  The  principle  contents  of  this  work 
is  the  "  Luther  Histories  "  which  we  have  spoken  of  as  a 
source  of  the  Tischreden  also. 

Buchwald :  Mathesius'  Predigten  iiber  Luthers  Leben, 
1904,  publishes  them  again. 

Rockwell,  W.  W. :  Die  Doppelehe  des  Landgrafen 
Philip p  von  Hessen.      1904. 

Little  is  to  be  found  on  the  literary  aspect  of  the  Tisch- 
reden. The  Histories  of  German  Literature  (Vilmar, 
Scherer,  Francke)  ignore  them.  Most  of  the  editors  by 
way  of  literary  appreciation  indulge  in  a  few  lugubrious  re- 
marks on  the  coarseness  to  be  found  in  them.  Walch  (Einl. 
to  Bd.  xxii,  see  supra)  gives  a  short  analysis  of  their  con- 


259]  APPENDIX  I33 

tents.     Special  aspects  of  the  Tischreden  are  spoken  of  in 
the  following: 

Moller  &  Strieker:  Benignissimo  Facidtatis  Philoso- 
phicae  indultu,  auctoritatem  scripti,  sub  titulo  D.  Lutheri 
Colloquiorum  Mensalium  Editi,  considerabunt.  1693. 
This  is  an  impossible  attempt  to  defend  the  Table  Talk  by- 
proving  it  a  forgery. 

Eberhard,  J.  E. :  Schediasma  Historicum  de  B.  D.  Lutheri 
Colloquiis  Mensalibus,  1698,  (M  DC  XCIIX).  This  tiny 
quaint  old  monograph  I  picked  up  at  a  second-hand  book- 
store.    It  is  very  eloquent  and  very  inane. 

Zincgref,  J.  W. :  Teutsche  scharfsinnige  kluge  Apoph- 
thegmata,  1628,  gives  a  number  of  little  stories  and  pro- 
verbs attributed  to  Luther,  most  of  which  are  apocryphal. 

Xanthippus:  "  Gute  alte  deutsche  Spruche."  Three 
articles  in  Preussischen  Jahrbiicher,  vol.  85.  (July  to  Sep- 
tember, 1896.)  Pp.  149,  344,  503.  This  gives  an  inter- 
esting and  accurate  view  of  the  influence  of  the  Tischreden 
on  German  proverbial  speech. 

Chasle,  Philarete:  "La  Renaissance  Sensuelle;  Luther, 
Rabelais,  Skelton,  Folengo,"  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes, 
Mar.,  1842.  This  once  celebrated  writer  sees  in  Luther 
the  apostle  of  the  movement  against  asceticism  which  he 
thinks  preceded  the  Reformation. 

Hereford,  C.  H. :  Studies  in  the  Literary  Relations  of 
England  and  Germany  in  the  16th  Century.  1886.  This 
author,  although  he  says  in  his  Preface  "  for  us  Luther  is 
solely  the  author  of  Ein  Feste  Burg,"  throws  some  light  on 
allusions  in  the  Tischreden  to  contemporary  German  liter- 
ature, as  for  example  in  his  short  treatment  of  "  Grobianus 
and  Grobianism."  (Pp.  379,  380.  Cf.,  Wrampelmeyer, 
no.  1738.) 

Robinson,  J.  H. :  "  The  Study  of  the  Lutheran  Revolt." 
Am.  Hist.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1903.  A  critical  review  of  recent 
literature  on  the  Protestant  Revolt. 


I34  APPENDIX  [26o 

Rolffs,  E. :  "  Luthers  Humor  ein  Stuck  seiner  Religion." 
Preussische  Jahrbiicher  1904,  vol.  155.  Pp.  468-488. 
Treats  this  side  of  Luther's  style  in  an  agreeable  and 
popular  manner. 

Weiss,  J. :  Luthers  Einfluss  auf  die  deutsche  Liter- 
atur.  This  author  says  nothing  about  the  Tischreden,  but 
is  worth  mentioning  for  his  general  treatment  of  the  subject. 

Schmidt,  E. :  "  Faust  und  Luther."  In  Konig.  prens. 
Akademie  der  Wissenschaftcn  an  Berlin  Sitzungsberichte, 
July,   1896.     P.  567. 

Brunet,  G. :  Introduction  to  the  Propos  de  Table,  gives 
a  bright,  though  superficial  appreciation  of  the  subject. 

The  following  may  be  mentioned  as  important  linguistic 
helps  in  reading  Luther's  Tischreden : 

Du  Cange:  Glossarium  mediae  ct  infiniae  Latinitatis. 
Grimm:  Deutsches  Worterbuch.     Vols.  I-X  (to  sprechen, 

1905)- 

Dietz:  Luther  Worterbuch.     Vol.  I,  A-H.      1870. 

Schmeller:  BayriscJicr  Worterbuch,  bearbeitet  von  G.  K. 
Fromman,  Miinchen,  1877.  This  is  the  best  of  the  diction- 
aries for  dialectical  peculiarities  which  often  appear  in  Lu- 
ther's speech.  It  is  phonetically  arranged,  the  b's  and  p's 
coming  together,  for  example,  a  sensible  plan  as  they  are 
so  freely  interchangeable. 

Opitz,  K.  E. :  Luthers  Sprache.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  ges- 
chichte  des  Neuhochdeutschen.     1869. 

No  complete  bibliography  of  any  branch  of  the  literature 
can  be  found.  For  the  MSS.,  the  Introductions  to  Kroker, 
and  Losche's  Analccta,  and  the  article  of  Meyer  before 
mentioned,  supplement  each  other.  For  the  editions,  the 
lists  in  the  Introductions  of  the  editions  of  Irmischer, 
Walch  and  Forstemann-Bindseil  are  good  for  the  time  pre- 


26 1  ]  APPENDIX  j    - 

ceding  their  issue,  but  are  not  complete.     One  may  also 
consult  : 

British  Museum  Catalogue;  Section  on  Luther  printed 
separately  1894. 

Fabritius:  Centifolium  Luther  anum.1 
Zuchold:  Bibliotheca  Theologica  Vol.  it. 
Hinrich's  Catalogues  1750  to  date. 
Kostlin  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  723-733. 
Real-Encyclopadie.     Article  "Luther,"  more  recent. 

1 1  have  not  seen  this,  but  it  is  continually  referred  to  by  Irmischer 
and  Walch,  being  apparently  their  chief  source. 


ERRATA. 
P.  IS  line  12  for  Cordatus  read  Cordatus  ■ 
P.  21  note  3  line  1  for  Allegmeine  read  Allgemeine 
P.  40  note  3  line  1  for  Zellerfled  read  Zellerfeld 
P.  55  note  1  line  6  for  p.  37  read  p.  53 
P.  67  note  1  for  p.  54  read  p.  71 
P  68  note!  line  2  for  (ed.  l889).  read  (ed.  1889) . 
P.  86  line  6  for  Hutton  read  Hutten 
P.  122  line  15  for  gegben  read  gegeben 
P  129  hnes  9  and  10  for  doctrine  read  doctrines 


DATE    DUE 

^•'■''VlMI  lu'ljjjjj. 

■ws^^? 

p-jMijIl 

I 

1 

■ 

■ 

§ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

GAYLORO 

PRINTED  IN  USA 

